Round Rock Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Amy M.

540 F.Supp.3d 679

ROUND ROCK INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

v.AMY M., Individually and on Behalf of Sophia M., a Minor Child With a Disability, Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff,

v.Matt Groff, in His Individual Capacity, and Antonio Lott, in His Individual Capacity, Third-Party Defendants.

CAUSE NO. 1:20-CV-496-LY

United States District Court, W.D. Texas, Austin Division.

Signed May 19, 2021

Stacy C. Ferguson, Victor I. Cerda, Escamilla & Poneck, LLP, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant/Third-Party Defendants.

Elizabeth Ann Angelone, Cuddy Law Firm, PLLC, Austin, TX, for Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff.

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

LEE YEAKEL, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court in the above-styled and numbered cause of action are Defendant Amy M.’s Motion for Pendency or in the Alternative, Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Has Not Implemented Relief Ordered by Special Education Hearing Officer filed September 30, 2020 (Doc. #12), Plaintiff Round Rock Independent School District's ("RRISD") Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counter-Claim filed December 18, 2020 (Doc. #16), Third-Party Defendants Matt Groff and Antonio Lott's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff's Original Third Party Complaint filed December 18, 2020 (Doc. #17), Defendant Amy M.’s Unopposed Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order on Plaintiff's IDEA Claims filed April 7, 2021 (Doc. #24), and associated response and reply briefs.

This case was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge for resolution of nondispositive motions and report and recommendation on dispositive motions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A)-(B) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72 ; Loc. R. W.D. Tex. App'x C, R. 1(c)-(d).

The magistrate judge signed an order and report and recommendation on April 29, 2021 (Doc. #27) recommending that this court grant Amy M.’s motion by ordering RRISD to reimburse tuition and transportation expenses, deny RRISD's and Groff and Lot's motions to dismiss, and grant Amy M.’s scheduling-order motion.

12 A party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge within 14 days after being served with a copy of the report and recommendation and thereby secure de novo review by the district court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) ; Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). A party's failure to timely file written objections to the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a report and recommendation bars that party, except upon grounds of plain error, from attacking on appeal the unobjected-to proposed factual findings and legal conclusions accepted by the district court. See Douglass v. United Services Auto Ass'n, 79 F.3d 1415 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).

The record shows that all parties had notice of the report and recommendation by April 29, 2021, and that objections were due on or before May 13, 2021. RRISD, Groff, and Lott filed objections to the report and recommendation on May 13, 2021 (Doc. #29). Amy M. responded to RRISD, Groff, and Lott's objections to the report and recommendation on May 19, 2021 (Doc. #31), arguing that the objections "should be overruled and the [report and recommendation] should be adopted in full." In light of the objections, the court undertakes a de novo review of the record and applicable law.

The court is of the opinion that the objections do not raise issues that were not adequately addressed in the report and recommendation. Therefore, finding no error, the court accepts and adopts the report and recommendation filed in this case for substantially the reasons stated therein. Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that RRISD, Groff, and Lott's objections to the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge are OVERRULED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED by the court.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Amy M.’s pendency-or-show-cause motion (Doc. #12) is GRANTED. RRISD shall reimburse Amy M. for tuition and transportation expenses as outlined in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that RRISD's (Doc. #16) and Groff and Lot's (Doc. #17) motions to dismiss are DENIED.

IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Amy M.’s scheduling-order motion (Doc. #24) is GRANTED. The court will render a separate scheduling order.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

MARK LANE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

TO THE HONORABLE LEE YEAKEL UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE:

Before the court are Defendant Round Rock Independent School District's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Defendant's Counter-Claim (Dkt. #16); Third Party Defendants Matt Groff and Antonio Lott's Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff/Third-Party Plaintiff's Original Third Party Complaint (Dkt. #17); Defendants’ Motion for Pendency or in the alternative, Order to Show Cause Why Defendant Has Not Implemented Relief Ordered by Special Education Hearing Officer (Dkt. #12); and Defendant's Unopposed Motion for Entry of Scheduling Order on Plaintiff's IDEA Claims (Dkt. #24).¹ After reviewing the entire case file, relevant case law, and determining a hearing is not necessary, the undersigned issues the following Report and Recommendation to the District Court.

I. BRIEF BACKGROUND

This action started with two separate lawsuits. First, Amy M. ("Amy") filed a lawsuit, individually and on behalf of her minor daughter, Sophia M. ("Student"), seeking an award of attorneys’ fees and costs against Round Rock Independent School District ("RRISD") under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. M. v. RRISD , No. 1:20-cv-00256-LY-ML (Dkt. #1). Second, RRISD filed a separate lawsuit seeking a de novo appeal of the Special Education Hearing Officer's underlying IDEA decision. Dkt. #1. Per RRISD's unopposed motion, these two suits were consolidated under the above-styled case number. Dkt. #15.

Subsequently, Amy filed two auxiliary claims. Amy, individually and on behalf of Student, first filed counterclaims against RRISD pursuant to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (the "ADA") and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (the "RA"). Dkt. #5. Next, Amy filed a third-party complaint against Matt Groff ("Groff") and Antonio Lott ("Lott"), in their individual capacities, asserting 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and First Amendment retaliatory claims. Dkt. #6. The parties’ present motions focus on these auxiliary claims. Accordingly, the undersigned will only provide the facts necessary to adjudicate the parties’ currently pending motions.

II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Student is a high school student attending Round Rock High School in the Round Rock Independent School District. Dkt. #5 at 8. Due to a serious boating accident that occurred in July of 2013, Student is eligible for special education and related services as a student with a traumatic brain injury ("TBI") and an "other health impairment" ("OHI") of Chronic Headache Disorder. Dkt. #1-1 at 4 (Decision of the Hearing Officer).² Since the underlying accident, Student has had multiple individual education plans ("IEPs") in order to provide her with a free appropriate public education ("FAPE"). See id. During one such IEP, a March 7, 2014 IEP conducted in Hawaii, it was noted that Student was most alert during the mornings but then would deteriorate as the day progressed, resulting in ongoing headaches and significant mental and physical fatigue. Id. As a result of her TBI and OHI, Student missed a large amount of school during her middle school years. See id. at 4-7.

Student started her freshman year at Round Rock High School during the fall of 2018. Id. at 7. She was unable to complete freshman orientation because of headaches instigated by loud noises. Id. Student's parents, in what the pleadings reveal to be a pattern of attentive and proactive behavior, emailed the school district to inform it about Student's issues and conditions. The parents recommended the high school reach out to the Student's middle school case manager to discuss Student's needs and provided the case manager's phone number. Id.

Student's neurologist completed a 504 service OHI form on September 21, 2018, indicating she had "refractory headaches/migraine, anxiety, and PTSD." Id. The neurologist recommended that Student be given a reduced workload, reduced homework, and other modifications as needed. Id. This medical finding was duplicated by other medical professionals throughout Student's childhood. See id.

In September of 2018, parents began emailing various school district employees notifying them of Student's absences due to migraines. Id. These migraines resulted in Student's admittance to Dell Children's Hospital and Boston Children's Hospital, of which the school district was notified. Furthermore, Student missed 65 days during the fall of the 2018-2019 school year and the entire spring semester of 2019. Id. at 12.

During this time, Student's health continued to decline. Student's parents inquired about "home tutoring" in an email to Student's case manager in light of her continued absences. Id. at 8. In the fall and winter of 2018-2019, Student's therapist recommended that Student return to school "when she was medically able to do so"; Student's neurologist provided a homebound needs assessment to RRISD and indicated Student would be confined to the house for an extended period of time; and Student's psychiatrist sent a letter to RRISD recommending that Student be reintegrated into the school environment via "homebound services" administered in the school library so that she could have "a flexible schedule for her difficult days." Id. at 9. Subsequently, Student's neurologist informed...