Northland Parent Ass'n v. Excelsior Springs Sch. Dist. # 40
| Decision Date | 29 November 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 21-CV-00623-FJG |
| Citation | 571 F.Supp.3d 1104 |
| Parties | NORTHLAND PARENT ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. EXCELSIOR SPRINGS SCHOOL DISTRICT # 40, et al., Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Missouri |
Kevin R. Corlew, PathGuide Law LLC, Gladstone, MO, for Plaintiff.
Jessica Bernard, Ryan T. Fry, Guin Mundorf, LLC, Kansas City, MO, Ryan S. VanFleet, EdCounsel, LLC, Independence, MO, for Defendants Board of Education of Excelsior Springs School District # 40, Liberty 53 School District, Board of Education of Liberty 53 School District, Excelsior Springs School District # 40, Platte County School District R-III, Board of Education of Platte County School District R-III.
Duane A. Martin, EdCounsel, LLC, Columbia, MO, Ryan S. VanFleet, EdCounsel, LLC, Independence, MO, for Defendants Kearney R-1 School District, Board of Education of Kearney R-I School District.
W. Joseph Hatley, Angus White Dwyer, Stephanie Lovett-Bowman, Spencer Fane LLP, Kansas City, MO, Ryan S. VanFleet, EdCounsel, LLC, Independence, MO, for Defendants North Kansas City School District # 74, Board of Education of North Kansas City School District # 74, Smithville R-II School District, Board of Education of Smithville R-II School District, Park Hill School District, Board of Education of Park Hill School District.
Tara Michelle Kelly, City Attorney's Office, Kansas City, MO, Ryan S. VanFleet, EdCounsel, LLC, Independence, MO, for Defendants Quinton Lucas, City Council of Kansas City, MO.
Michelle R. Stewart, Lindsey Freihoff, Hinkle Law Firm LLC, Lenexa, KS, Ryan S. VanFleet, EdCounsel, LLC, Independence, MO, for Defendants Bryant DeLong, City Council of North Kansas City, MO.
Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge Currently pending before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (Doc. # 40) and Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 48), Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 58), Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File Excess Pages (Doc. # 68), the Parties’ Joint Motion for Extension of Deadlines (Doc. # 74) and plaintiff's Substitute Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint (Doc. # 76).
The Northland Parent Association ("NPA") is a Missouri nonprofit corporation. The Complaint alleges that it is made up of hundreds of parents, guardians, families and taxpayers in Clay and Platte Counties in Missouri who "inform themselves, educate the public, and advocate for the health and social, emotional, and academic wellbeing of students in the Northland area of the metropolitan area of Kansas City." (Complaint, ¶ 2). The NPA brought suit against seven different school districts and their school boards1 . The Court will refer to these defendants as the "School Defendants." Plaintiff also sued the Mayor and City Council of Kansas City and the Mayor and City Council of North Kansas City. Before the beginning of the current school year, the School Defendants instituted mask mandates, various exemptions to the mandates and quarantine policies. Plaintiff's Complaint asserts that in implementing the mask mandates defendants failed to consider certain aspects and factors regarding the masking of children and neglected the comments and information provided by members of the electorate who opposed the mandates. Plaintiff asserts that the mask mandates are unconstitutional, unlawful, unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and involve an abuse of discretion. The Court held oral argument on plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction on November 17, 2021.
In Driesen v. Smith, No. C13-4037-MWB, 2014 WL 24234 (N.D. Iowa Jan. 2, 2014), aff'd, 584 Fed.Appx. 292 (8th Cir. 2014), the Court explained the standards for Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1).
A motion attacking the court's subject matter jurisdiction is governed by Federal Rule Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). A Rule 12(b)(1) motion can either attack the complaint's claim of jurisdiction on its face or it can attack the factual basis for jurisdiction.... In a facial challenge to jurisdiction, all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction are presumed to be true and the motion is successful if the plaintiff fails to allege an element necessary for subject matter jurisdiction.... If the [defendant] wants to make a factual attack on the jurisdictional allegations of the complaint, the court may receive competent evidence such as affidavits, deposition testimony, and the like in order to determine the factual dispute.
Id. at * 6 (internal citations omitted). "When addressing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion the Court can, without converting the motion into one for summary judgment, make credibility determinations and [ ] weigh conflicting evidence in resolving the motion." Zarling v. Abbott Laboratories, No. CV 21-23 (MJD/BRT), 2021 WL 2551438, at *4 (D. Minn. June 22, 2021) (internal citations and quotations omitted).
To survive a motion to dismiss under 12(b)(6), "a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ). A pleading that merely pleads "labels and conclusions" or a "formulaic recitation" of the elements of a cause of action, or "naked assertions" devoid of "further factual enhancement" will not suffice. Id. (quoting Twombly ). "Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 1950. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) we must accept the plaintiff's factual allegations as true and grant all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor. Phipps v. FDIC, 417 F.3d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir. 2005).
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15(a) provides that "a party may amend its pleading only with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). Rule 15(a) further states that "[t]he court should freely grant [such] leave when justice so requires." Id. This standard is construed liberally but "plaintiffs do not have an absolute or automatic right to amend." United States ex rel. Lee v. Fairview Health Sys., 413 F.3d 748, 749 (8th Cir. 2005) (citing Meehan v. United Consumers Club Franchising Corp., 312 F.3d 909, 913 (8th Cir. 2002) ). A district court may appropriately deny the movant leave to amend if "there are compelling reasons such as undue delay, bad faith, or dilatory motive, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the non-moving party, or futility of the amendment." Moses.com Sec., Inc. v. Comprehensive Software Sys., Inc., 406 F.3d 1052, 1065 (8th Cir. 2005) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). When a defendant alleges that amendment is futile, the Court considers if "the amended complaint could not withstand a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure." Zutz v. Nelson, 601 F.3d 842, 850 (8th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, this Court asks "whether the proposed amended complaint states a cause of action under the Twombly pleading standard outlined above." Id. at 850-51.
Defendants argue that plaintiff's Complaint cannot proceed for two reasons: 1) NPA lacks standing to assert the majority of its claims because the Complaint alleges no actual injury to its members’ children to support the majority of its legal theories and plaintiff does not have standing under the Associational Standing doctrine and 2) all of the counts asserted fail to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
"[S]tanding is a jurisdictional prerequisite that must be resolved before reaching the merits of a suit." City of Clarkson Valley v. Mineta, 495 F.3d 567, 569 (8th Cir. 2007). "In essence, the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975). "[S]tanding imports justiciability: whether the plaintiff has made out a between himself and the defendant within the meaning of Article III. Id. The standing inquiry requires the plaintiff to allege "some threatened or actual injury" traceable to the defendant, such that the plaintiff has "such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to warrant his invocation of federal-court jurisdiction and to justify exercise of the court's remedial power on his behalf." Id. at 498-99, 95 S.Ct. 2197.To demonstrate Article III standing, a plaintiff must show each of the following: "(1) an injury in fact; (2) a causal connection between the injury and the challenged conduct; and (3) the likelihood that a favorable decision by the court will redress the alleged injury." Iowa League of Cities v. Env't Prot. Agency, 711 F.3d 844, 869 (8th Cir. 2013). An injury in fact sufficient to confer standing must be concrete and particularized, as well as actual and imminent, as opposed to hypothetical. Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs. (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81, 120 S.Ct. 693, 145 L.Ed.2d 610 (2000) ; Warth, 422 U.S. at 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197 ().
Organization for Black Struggle v. Ashcroft, 493 F. Supp. 3d 790, 797 (W.D. Mo. 2020).
An association ... "has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests...
To continue reading
Request your trial