B.L. v. Fetherman

1

B.L., individually and on behalf of J.L., his minor child at all pertinent times, and on behalf of all similarly situated students, Plaintiff, v. MICHAEL J. FETHERMAN, et al., Defendants.

Civil Action No. 22-3471

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 18, 2023

Not For Publication

OPINION & ORDER

John Michael Vazquez, U.S.D.J.

In this civil rights matter, Plaintiff challenges a school district's response to George Floyd's murder and the national backlash. Multiple motions are currently pending before the Court. First, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). D.E. 6. Second, Plaintiff appeals Magistrate Judge Jessica S. Allen's February 8 2023 Opinion and Order denying Plaintiff's motion to proceed by pseudonym. Plaintiff also seeks to stay enforcement of Judge Allen's Order until this Court decides Defendants' Rule 12 motion. D.E. 24. Defendants oppose Plaintiff's appeal and filed a cross-motion seeking to dismiss the matter pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). D.E. 25. The Court reviewed the parties' submissions^[1] and considered the appeal and motions without oral argument pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b) and L. Civ. R. 78.1(b). For the reasons that follow, Plaintiff's appeal is DENIED Defendants' cross-motion to dismiss is DENIED without prejudice but their Rule 12 motion to dismiss is GRANTED, and the motion to stay is DENIED as moot.

I. FACTUAL^[2] AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

In the wake of George Floyd's murder, the Mountain Lakes School District (“MLSD”) allegedly initiated “anti-racist” programming. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-2, 6, 37. According to Plaintiff, the anti-racism pedagogy includes teaching that white children are informed that they are racially superior, race conversations are necessary to interrupt racial biases that white children are forming, and the role of white people in perpetuating racism. Id. ¶ 2. Plaintiff's son J.L. is Caucasian, and during the events at issue, was a student at Mountain Lakes High School. Id. ¶¶ 14-15. Plaintiff maintains that the anti-racism teaching is discriminatory and illegal. Id. ¶ 10.

On June 6, 2020, Defendant Frank Sanchez, the then principal of Mountain Lakes High School, emailed parents a communication incorporating anti-racism pedagogy. Am. Compl. ¶¶ 20, 37-42. Sanchez sent a video to students the same day that addressed anti-racism concepts and “compel[ed] students to attend rallies for the Black Lives Matter political movement.” Id. ¶¶ 4445. B.L. “politely reached out” to Sanchez to express his belief that Sanchez's communications violated MLSD policies in addition to state and federal law. Id. ¶ 46. Sanchez did not respond to the email. Id. ¶ 48. Instead, Sanchez promoted an event on June 16, 2020 that incorporated the anti-racist curriculum. Id. ¶ 47. On June 17, 2020, the Mountain Lakes Educational Foundation, in partnership with the MLSD, held a two-hour webinar that focused on white privilege and antiracism. Id. ¶ 53. The webinar was subsequently distributed to the entire school community. Id. ¶ 54.

On June 13, 2020, B.L. sent an email to the Individual Defendants^[3] explaining why the anti-racism curriculum violated MLSD policy and the law. Id. ¶¶ 48-51. After no Defendant responded to his email, B.L. sent a follow-up email on June 16, 2020 that reiterated his views, specifically as to the “impropriety of MLSD's endorsement of [the] webinar.” Id. ¶ 52. Defendant Beth Azar, the then Acting Superintendent, “finally responded to B.L.'s emails on June 18, 2020.” Id. ¶¶ 18, 55. In her email, Azar stated that she felt the contents of the webinar did not compromise MLSD policies. Id. ¶ 55. B.L. replied to Azar on June 18, 2020, asking if she would have a conversation with B.L. and his attorney. B.L. followed up with Azar on July 3, 2020 because she had not sent another email, prompting her to respond to his request for a meeting. Id. ¶¶ 56-57.

Beginning on June 23, 2020, MLSD administrators “began an email dialogue” with a group of former and current students who supported the anti-racism curriculum. Id. ¶ 58. These communications continued for months. Id. ¶ 59. During the same time, B.L. “and another gentleman” tried to engage in discussions with the Individual Defendants about objections to the anti-racism curriculum. Id. ¶ 60.

Defendant Michael J. Fetherman became Superintendent for the new school year. As Superintendent, Fetherman met with B.L. on several occasions. Id. ¶ 63. Several weeks after these meetings, MLSD began to promote a second webinar involving the anti-racist curriculum. B.L. subsequently sent Fetherman an email “asserting his disappointment” with Fetherman after their conversations, and Fetherman responded. Id. ¶ 65. B.L. followed with a series of questions, but Fetherman did not respond. The advertised webinar occurred on November 16, 2020. Id. ¶¶ 6667. B.L. sent an email to the Individual Defendants after the webinar and received a response from the MLSD's attorney. Id. ¶ 68. B.L. subsequently attended another meeting at the MLSD attorney's request. Fetherman; Defendant Joanne Calabria Barkauskas, President of the Board; and B.L.'s attorney also participated. Id. ¶ 71. At the meeting, Barkauskas asked B.L. about his desired outcome. B.L. then submitted a written response of proposed solutions that “would help in correcting the illegal actions that had occurred.” Id. ¶¶ 71-72. B.L. never received a response to his written demands. Id. ¶ 72.

Plaintiff filed his initial Complaint on June 6, 2022, D.E. 1, and filed the Amended Complaint on July 1, 2022, D.E. 5. In the Amended Complaint, B.L. asserts Counts One through Four and the Eighth Count on J.L.'s behalf. B.L. asserts Counts Five through Seven as well as Nine and Ten on his own behalf. On July 20, 2022, Defendants filed a motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12. Defendants maintain that B.L. lacks standing to assert claims on J.L.'s behalf, seeking dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendants also contend that remaining claims must be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). D.E. 6.

In addition, Plaintiff and his son, who are only referred to by their initials, sought leave to proceed under their pseudonyms pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a). D.E. 10. B.L. contends that he received threats because of the claims he asserts in the instant matter, causing him to fear for his and J.L.'s safety. Moreover, J.L. was a student at Mountain Lakes High School and a minor when most of the relevant events occurred. Am. Compl. ¶ 15; Plf. Br. at 7. As a result, Plaintiff maintains that because this matter involves the interests of minors, including J.L.'s at the time, he and J.L. should be allowed to proceed anonymously. Plf. Br. at 7. Judge Allen denied Plaintiff's motion and ordered that Plaintiff and J.L. file an amended pleading disclosing their identities by February 24, 2023. D.E. 22, 23. On February 22, 2023, Plaintiff filed the instant appeal. D.E. 24. Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint, and instead seeks to stay Judge Allen's Order requiring an amended complaint until this Court decides Defendants' Rule 12 motion. Id. On March 6, 2023, Defendants filed a cross-motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(d) because of Plaintiff's failure to comply with Judge Allen's Order. D.E. 25.

II. CROSS-MOTION TO DISMISS

Defendants contend that their cross-motion to dismiss is a threshold issue that must be addressed before the Court reaches the merits of Plaintiff's appeal. Defs. Opp. at 2-5. “A defendant may move to dismiss a claim against him [under Rule 41(b)] where ‘the plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with [the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure] or a court order.'”^[4]Hildebrand v. Allegheny County, 923 F.3d 128, 131-32 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b)). Judge Allen ordered Plaintiff to file an amended complaint that discloses his and J.L.'s identities by February 24, 2023. See Feb. 8 Opinion at 13, D.E. 22. Plaintiff did not file an amended pleading but instead filed the instant appeal and motion to stay. D.E. 24.

In most cases, appealing a non-dispositive decision of a magistrate judge

does not operate to stay the order pending to a Judge. A stay of a Magistrate Judge's order pending appeal must be sought in the first instance from the Magistrate Judge whose order has been appealed, upon due notice to all interested parties.

L. Civ. R. 72.1(c)(1)(B). Plaintiff did not seek a stay from Judge Allen but has since filed a motion to stay Judge Allen's Order nunc pro tunc. D.E. 28. The Third Circuit emphasizes that “[w]ithout a doubt, cases should be decided on the merits barring substantial circumstances in support of the contrary outcome.” See Hildebrand, 923 F.3d at 132. Moreover, “dismissal is a harsh sanction which should be resorted to only in extreme cases.” Coulter v. Paul Laurence Dunbar Cmty. Ctr., 765 Fed.Appx. 848, 853 (3d Cir. 2019) (quoting Dyotherm Corp. v. Turbo Mach. Co., 392 F.2d 146, 148-49 (3d Cir. 1968)). Although Plaintiff did not follow the Local Rules of Civil Procedure in seeking a stay, Plaintiff moved for a stay before Judge Allen's deadline and has since attempted to fix his error. Accordingly, the drastic sanction of dismissal is not appropriate. Defendants' cross-motion is denied, and the Court will consider the merits of Plaintiff's appeal.

III. MAGISTRATE JUDGE APPEAL

A magistrate judge may hear and determine any non-dispositive pretrial matter pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). A district court may only reverse a magistrate's decision on these matters if it is “clearly erroneous or contrary to law.”...