Corriveau v. Town of Windham

1

2024 Vt Super 042302

Crystal Corriveau et al v. Town of Windham et al

No. 23-CV-03359

Superior Court of Vermont, Civil Division, Windham Unit

April 23, 2024

Title Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss; Motion to Dismiss (Motion: 5; 6; 12; 13; 18; 19)

Filer Kevin L. Kite; Sean M. Toohey; Kate T. Gallagher; Kevin L Kite; Kate T. Gallagher; Kevin L. Kite

Filed Date: September 11, 2023; October 06, 2023; November 17 2023; November 20, 2023; February 01, 2024; February 01, 2024

ENTRY REGARDING MOTION

DAVID BARRA, SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE

This is a civil action where Plaintiffs-parents of elementary school-aged children who reside in the Windham School District-seek redress for violations of their children's fundamental constitutional right to education under the Education Clause of the Vermont Constitution and to substantially equal educational opportunity under the Common Benefits Clause. The complaint names the State of Vermont ("State Defendant"), Town of Windham ("Town Defendant"), Windham Central Supervisory Union, and Windham School District ("School Defendants") as Defendants.

Before the court are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint on all counts pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The three-count complaint alleges: (1) a violation of the Education Clause of the Vermont Constitution (Count I); (2) a violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution (Count II); and (3) "preliminary and permanent injunction" (Count III). Plaintiffs generally oppose the motions. For the following reasons, the motions are GRANTED IN PART.

A. BACKGROUND

i. Relevant procedural history

On August 4, 2023, Plaintiffs initiated the instant suit against the Town of Windham and the State of Vermont. Their two-count complaint alleged (1) in Count I that "denying Windham schoolchildren town tuitioning violates their constitutional right to substantially equal educational opportunity afforded other Vermont schoolchildren who have the benefit of town tuitioning[;]" and (2) in Count II requested a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering Defendants to provide town tuitioning to Plaintiffs' children. Original Compl., at ¶ 131 et seq. The original complaint was accompanied by an expedited motion for preliminary and permanent injunction and a request for an expedited hearing. On August 31, 2023, this court denied Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction, ruling that Plaintiffs had not met their burden of persuasion. See Entry Regarding Motion (filed Aug. 31, 2023).

On October 25, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend their original complaint due to "substantial factual changes since the first complaint was filed." Mot. to Amend (filed Oct. 25, 2023) at ¶ 3. On November 3, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the first amended complaint due to "additional substantial factual changes." Mot. to Amend (filed Nov. 3, 2023) at ¶ 3. This court granted both motions to amend. See Entry Regarding Motion (filed Nov. 3, 2023). On December 1, 2023, Plaintiffs filed an assented motion to amend the second amended complaint which sought to "add the Windham School District as a Defendant." Mot to Amend (filed Dec. 1, 2023) at ¶ 1. This court granted that motion. See Entry Regarding Motion (filed Dec. 6, 2023). On January 14, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a motion to amend the third amended complaint, citing, again, "substantial factual changes." Mot. to Amend (filed Jan. 14, 2024) at ¶ 3. This court, again, granted that motion. See Entry Regarding Motion (filed Jan. 18, 2024).

Since the commencement of the proceedings in the instant matter, each Defendant has filed a separate motion to dismiss each of Plaintiffs' amended complaints. See Def. Town Mot. to Dismiss (filed Sep. 11, 2023); Def. State of Vermont Mot. to Dismiss (filed Oct. 6, 2023); Def. Town Mot. to Dismiss Second Amended Compl. (filed Nov. 17, 2023); Def. State of Vermont Mot. to Dismiss Second Amended Compl. (filed Nov. 20, 2023); Def. Windham School Dist. Mot. to Dismiss (filed Feb. 1, 2023). The record also contains a plethora of responses, replies, sur-replies, exhibits, and various other non-dispositive motions from virtually all involved parties. On January 18, 2024, this court ordered that "[a]ll previously filed dispositive motions, responses and replies will be reviewed and incorporated into resolution of case dispositive motions involving the fourth amended complaint." See Scheduling/Entry Order (filed Jan. 18, 2024). Importantly for the present purposes, before the court now are Defendants' motions to dismiss Plaintiffs' fourth amended complaint.

ii. Fourth Amended Complaint

Plaintiffs filed their fourth amended complaint on January 14, 2024. The complaint's introductory portion begins by citing Vitale v. Bellows Falls Union High Sch, 2023 VT 15, ¶ 11 for the proposition that "under the Vermont constitution, education is a 'fundamental constitutional right' of each Vermont school child." Fourth Amended Compl., at p. 1. It subsequently goes on to explain that

[i]n Vermont, some school children have the benefit of Vermont's school choice method of providing the fundamental right of education, called 'town tuitioning,' where a local town provides tuition on behalf of each school child, paid to the public school or accredited or approved independent school of his or her parent's choice.

Id. at p. 2. The complaint also explains that Plaintiffs' children "are required to attend the local Windham Elementary School where educational opportunities are substantially diminished compared to students who enjoy town tuitioning[,]" and "[t]hat substantial lack of educational opportunity violates the Vermont constitution and can only be remedied by an injunction ordering the Defendants to provide town tuition to the educational institutions that plaintiffs choose on behalf of their children." Id.

The complaint unequivocally states that it was "brought under V.R.C.P. 75." Fourth Amended Compl., at ¶ 10. It also announces categorically that "[s]ection 821(c) of Title 16 does not apply" to the instant matter because "[P]laintiffs in this complaint are either not nearer another school compared to Windham Elementary School, as required by Section 821(c), or are not seeking to have their children attend a school in an adjacent community." Id., at ¶ 15.

In Count I, the complaint alleges a violation of the Education Clause of the Vermont Constitution. Id., at ¶¶ 143-47. To support the allegation, the complaint cites 16 V.S.A. § 821 and the Vermont Supreme Court in Vitale for the proposition that "Vermont children have a fundamental constitutional right to an education under the Education Clause of the Vermont [C]onstitution." Id., at ¶¶ 144-45. In the 'bipartite'^[1] Count II, the complaint alleges a violation of the Common Benefits Clause of the Vermont Constitution. Id., at ¶¶ 148-58. The complaint, again, cites Vitale for the proposition that "[p]roviding school choice for some Vermont children, but not to Plaintiffs' children results in a 'substantial difference in educational opportunities' when comparing Plaintiffs' children and those children who receive the town tuitioning method of state provided education." Id., at ¶ 151 (quoting Vitale, 2023 VT 15, ¶ 9). It concludes that "denying Windham schoolchildren town tuitioning violates their constitutional right to substantially equal educational opportunity afforded other Vermont schoolchildren who have the benefit of town tuitioning." Id., at ¶ 156. The second element of Plaintiffs' 'bipartite' Count II alleges that "retaliatory conduct by the Defendants in refusing to pay tuition to four plaintiff families for the Mountain School, where their children have attended since August, 2023, violates the Common Benefits Clause under the factors outlined in In re Town Highway No. 20 [, 2012 VT 17, 191 Vt. 231.]" Id., at ¶ 157. Lastly, and quite curiously, Count III is styled as "Preliminary and Permanent Injunction[;]" both equitable remedies. Id., at ¶¶ 159-62; see also e.g., Weinberger v. Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 311 (1982) ("It goes without saying that an injunction is an equitable remedy."); 13 V.S.A. § 2606(e)(2) (explicitly listing "a preliminary injunction" and "a permanent injunction" as equitable forms of relief).

The complaint concludes by highlighting that Plaintiffs are requesting this court (1) "[d]eclare that Defendants are violating the Plaintiffs' children their rights under the Vermont Constitution by not affording them a substantially equal educational opportunity afforded other Vermont schoolchildren, for no legitimate governmental purpose[;]" (2) "[i]ssue a preliminary and permanent injunction ordering the Defendants to provide town tuitioning to Plaintiff[]s['] children[;]" (3) "[a]ward damages to Plaintiffs who have been forced to pay tuition or provide the equivalent of services to the schools their children are attending, in order that their children receive a quality basic education, and substantially equal educational opportunity[;]" and (4) "[a]ward damages to the Plaintiffs who remained at Windham during the fall semester 2023, and who suffered loss of a basic education, and loss of substantially [e]qual educational opportunity, as a result." Fourth Amended Compl., at pp. 32-33.

iii. State Defendant's Motion to Dismiss

State Defendant has moved to dismiss Plaintiffs' complaint on all counts pursuant to V.R.C.P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The motion argues that the complaint should be dismissed, inter alia, because the decision of the Vermont...