South Carolina v. Huntsville City Sch., Case No. 5:19-cv-00962-HNJ

• Decision Date: 20 February 2020
• Docket Number: Case No. 5:19-cv-00962-HNJ
• Parties: S.C., as parent/guardian of P.C., a minor, Plaintiff v. HUNTSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Alabama

441 F.Supp.3d 1228

S.C., as parent/guardian of P.C., a minor, Plaintiff

v.HUNTSVILLE CITY SCHOOLS, Defendant

Case No. 5:19-cv-00962-HNJ

United States District Court, N.D. Alabama, Northeastern Division.

Signed February 20, 2020

James D. Sears, Sears & Sears PC, Hoover, AL, Shane T. Sears, Sears & Sears PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff.

Christopher M. Pape, Rodney C. Lewis, LaNier Ford Shaver & Payne PC, Huntsville, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

HERMAN N. JOHNSON, JR., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff, S.C., who proceeds in her capacity as parent/guardian of P.C.,¹ a minor student, filed a Complaint for Attorney's Fees against Defendant Huntsville City Schools (or rather, Huntsville City Board of Education)² pursuant to § 615 of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I), 34 C.F.R. § 300.517(a)(1)(i), and Alabama Administrative Code § 290-8-9.08(9)(c)(17). (Doc. 1). This memorandum opinion addresses the Board's Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

As discussed below, this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the Plaintiff's settlement agreement under 20 U.S.C. §§ 1415(e)(2)(F)(iii) and 1415(f)(1)(B)(iii), and jurisdiction also fails as to a breach-of-contract claim due to lack of diversity jurisdiction. However, the court possesses federal question subject matter jurisdiction over Plaintiff's cause of action seeking attorney's fees pursuant to 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(3)(B)(i)(I) because the administrative hearing officer incorporated the parties' settlement agreement into his final order, thus rendering Plaintiff a prevailing party. Therefore, the court will deny the Board's motion to dismiss. Upon contact with the parties, the court will convene a hearing to discuss the most efficient path to proceed with this action.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

Rule 12(b)(1) Motion

"Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction" and, as such, possess the power to hear cases only as authorized by the Constitution or United States' laws. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am. , 511 U.S. 375, 377, 114 S.Ct. 1673, 128 L.Ed.2d 391 (1994). "[B]ecause a federal court is powerless to act beyond its statutory grant of subject matter jurisdiction, a court must zealously insure that jurisdiction exists over a case." Smith v. GTE Corp. , 236 F.3d 1292, 1299 (11th Cir. 2001).

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) permits a district court to dismiss a case for "lack of subject-matter jurisdiction." Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion on establishing the court's subject matter jurisdiction. OSI, Inc. v. United States , 285 F.3d 947, 951 (11th Cir. 2002) (citing Thomson v. Gaskill , 315 U.S. 442, 446, 62 S.Ct. 673, 86 L.Ed. 951 (1942) ; Menchaca v. Chrysler Credit Corp. , 613 F.2d 507, 511 (5th Cir. 1980) ).

The Eleventh Circuit establishes particular modes of review for Rule 12(b)(1) challenges to subject matter jurisdiction:

[A] motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) can be based upon either a facial or factual challenge to the complaint. If the challenge is facial, the plaintiff is left with safeguards similar to those retained when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is raised ... Accordingly, the court must consider the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true ...

A facial attack on the complaint requires the court merely to look and see if the plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion ... Factual attacks, on the other hand, challenge the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, irrespective of the pleadings, and matters outside the pleadings, such as testimony and affidavits are considered. Furthermore, ... the district court has the power to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on any of three separate bases: (1) the complaint alone; (2) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts evidenced in the record; or (3) the complaint supplemented by undisputed facts plus the court's resolution of disputed facts.

McElmurray v. Consol. Gov't of Augusta-Richmond Cty. , 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007) (citing, inter alia , Williamson v. Tucker , 645 F.2d 404, 412 (5th Cir. 1981) ; Lawrence v. Dunbar , 919 F.2d 1525, 1529 (11th Cir. 1990) ) (internal quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Therefore, a factual challenge to subject matter jurisdiction typically permits a "trial court ... to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case." Williamson , 645 F.2d at 413. No presumptive truthfulness would attach to a plaintiff's claims, and "the existence of disputed material facts [would] not preclude the trial court from evaluating for itself the merits of jurisdictional claims." Id. ; see also Lawrence , 919 F.2d at 1529.

When "a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions, the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the merits." Ramming v. United States , 281 F.3d 158, 161 (5th Cir. 2001) (citing Hitt v. City of Pasadena , 561 F.2d 606, 608 (5th Cir. 1977) );³ Harris v. Board of Trustees Univ. of Ala. , 846 F. Supp. 2d 1223, 1229-30 (N.D. Ala. 2012) (court considered Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional challenge before addressing Rule 12(b)(6) arguments).

Rule 12(b)(6) Motion

Rule 12(b)(6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, permits a court to dismiss a complaint if it fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. In Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Court revisited the applicable standard governing Rule 12(b)(6) motions to dismiss. First, courts must take note of the elements a plaintiff must plead to state the applicable claims at issue. Id. at 675, 129 S.Ct. 1937.

After establishing the elements of the claim at issue, the court identifies all well-pleaded, non-conclusory factual allegations in the complaint and assumes their veracity. Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Well-pleaded factual allegations do not encompass mere "labels and conclusions," legal conclusions, conclusory statements, or formulaic recitations and threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action. Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citations omitted). In evaluating the sufficiency of a plaintiff's pleadings, the court may draw reasonable inferences in plaintiff's favor. Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce, N.A., Inc. , 416 F.3d 1242, 1248 (11th Cir. 2005).

Third, a court assesses the complaint's well-pleaded allegations to determine if they state a plausible cause of action based upon the identified claim's elements. Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Plausibility ensues "when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged," and the analysis involves a context-specific task requiring a court "to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 678, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citations omitted). The plausibility standard does not equate to a "probability requirement," yet it requires more than a "mere possibility of misconduct" or factual statements that are "merely consistent with a defendant's liability." Id. at 678, 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citations omitted).

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

The IDEA requires any "State educational agency, Stage agency, or local educational agency" that receives federal funding to "establish and maintain procedures in accordance with this section to ensure that children with disabilities and their parents are guaranteed procedural safeguards with respect to the provision of a free appropriate public education." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(a) ; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.500 ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9). Those procedures include the opportunity to present an administrative due process complaint "with respect to any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement of the child, or the provision of a free appropriate public education to such child." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(b)(6)(A) ; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.507(a)(1) ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9)(a)(1)(i).

The state or local educational agency must establish procedures for the optional mediation of due process complaints. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(1) ; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(a) ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9)(b). The mediation process must be voluntary and must protect the parties' rights, and a qualified, impartial mediator with appropriate training must conduct the proceedings. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(A) ; see also 34 C.F.R. § 300.506(b)(1) ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9)(b)(2).

In the case that a resolution is reached to resolve the complaint through the mediation process, the parties shall execute a legally binding agreement that sets forth such resolution and that –

(i) states that all discussions that occurred during the mediation process shall be confidential and may not be used as evidence in any subsequent due process hearing or civil proceeding;

(ii) is signed by both the parent and a representative of the agency who has the authority to bind such agency; and

(iii) is enforceable in any State court of competent jurisdiction or in a district court of the United States.

20 U.S.C. § 1415(e)(2)(F) ; see also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.506(a), (b)(6) ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9)(b)(6).

The statute entitles each disabled child who files an administrative complaint to an "impartial due process hearing, which shall be conducted by the State educational agency or by the local educational agency, as determined by State law or by the State educational agency." 20 U.S.C. § 1415(f)(1)(A) ; see also 34 C.F.R. §§ 300.511(a), (b) ; Ala. Admin. Code r. 29-8-9.08(9)(c).

Prior to the opportunity for an impartial due process hearing

...