Torres v. Sampson Cnty. Bd. of Educ.

1

DIANNE TORRES individually and on behalf of E.T., minor child, and JOSE TORRES individually and on behalf of E.T., a minor child, Plaintiffs, v. SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Defendant.

SAMPSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION, Plaintiff, v. JOSE TORRES individually and on behalf of E.T., a minor child; DIANNE TORRES individually and on behalf of E.T., minor child; and E.T. a minor child, by and through his Legal Guardians, Jose Torres and Dianne Torres, Defendants.

Nos. 7:22-CV-99-FL, 7:22-CV-100-FL

United States District Court, E.D. North Carolina, Southern Division

December 14, 2022

ORDER

Louise W. Flanagan, United States District Judge

These related cases are before the court on motions to dismiss by defendant in case No. 7:22-CV-99-FL (DE 11) (the “Fee Case”), and by defendants in case No. 7:22-CV-100-FL (DE 11) (the “Review Case”). The issues raised are ripe for ruling. For the following reasons, the motions are denied.

STATEMENT OF THE CASES

A. Fee Case

In the Fee Case commenced on June 24, 2022, plaintiffs, who are the adoptive parents of their minor son, E.T., (hereinafter, the “parents”), claim that they are entitled to attorney's fees and costs incurred in obtaining a favorable March 28, 2022, decision by a North Carolina Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) (hereinafter the “underlying decision”) on an administrative complaint under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (“IDEA”). In the underlying decision, the ALJ invalidated a long-term suspension of E.T. by defendant Sampson County Board of Education (the “Board”) that was premised upon E.T.'s inappropriate touching of a female student. The parents seek $172,666.57 in attorney's fees and costs, in addition to fees and costs incurred in pursuing the instant action.

The Board filed the instant motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), on the basis that the Fee Case is time barred. In opposition, the parents rely upon a document published by the Public Schools of North Carolina, titled “Parent Rights & Responsibilities in Special Education: N.C. Notice of Procedural Safeguards.”

B. Review Case

In the Review Case, which commenced on the same day as the Fee Case the Board seeks judicial review of the underlying decision, as an aggrieved party under IDEA, 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). It asserts five counts in its complaint, claiming that the ALJ erred in the underlying decision because it: 1) lacked authority to reject school administrators' findings as to E.T.'s misconduct, 2) failed to show deference to the Board's factual findings, 3) made erroneous conclusions of law, 4) made unsupported findings of fact, and 5) made unsupported credibility determinations. The Board seeks the following relief: a) declaration that the Board is the prevailing party on all issues, b) order vacating the underlying decision, c) order finding substantively and procedurally appropriate the school administrators' decision regarding whether E.T.'s misconduct was a manifestation of his disabilities, and d) award of costs to the Board.

Thereafter, the parents, who are defendants in the Review Case, filed the instant motion to dismiss all claims therein for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim, pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) and Rule 12(b)(6).^[1] The parents rely upon exhibits comprising copies of unpublished decisions by District of Columbia and Michigan educational agencies. In opposition, the Board relies upon an additional unpublished decision by a Michigan educational agency.

STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

The facts alleged in the Review Case may be summarized as follows.^[2] According to the Board's complaint, “E.T. is a thirteen-year-old rising seventh grader in the Sampson County Schools.” (Compl. ¶ 2). In the 2021-22 school year he attended Roseboro-Salemburg Middle School. He “has diagnoses of selective mutism, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD).” (Id. ¶ 3). “E.T. qualifies for special education services under [IDEA] as a student with an Other Health Impairment (OHI).” (Id. ¶ 4).^[3]

In October of 2021, E.T. left his classroom, went down the hallway to another teacher's classroom, approached a female student, and allegedly “touched the student on her breast and buttocks after she told him to ‘get away.'” (Id. ¶ 5). According to the Board's complaint, “E.T. grabbed the same female student's breasts in April of 2021.” (Id. ¶ 6). Following investigation of this alleged misconduct, E.T.'s principal suspended him for ten days and considered recommending a long-term suspension depending on the outcome of a “manifestation determination review” (“MDR”). (Id. ¶ 7). According to the Board's complaint, such an MDR is convened, as required by the IDEA, to determine whether a student's alleged misconduct “was caused by, or had a direct and substantial relationship to, his disability.” (Id. ¶ 8).^[4]

On October 18, 2021, a “MDR Committee” at E.T.'s school “met and determined that E.T.'s conduct was not a manifestation of his disability” (hereinafter, the “manifestation determination”). (Id. ¶ 9). “The MDR Committee having decided the conduct was not a manifestation of E.T.'s disability, the school principal recommended a long-term suspension for E.T.” (Id. ¶ 10). An administrative-level hearing was held on the principal's recommendation for long-term suspension, at which hearing E.T. was represented by legal counsel. “The hearing resulted in a finding that E.T. had committed misconduct constituting sexual assault, and E.T. was suspended for the remainder of the 2021-22 school year” (hereinafter, the “long-term suspension”) (Id. ¶ 11).

On January 18, 2022, the parents filed a due process petition in the North Carolina Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”).^[5] “The Petition requested an expedited hearing on whether the school district had denied E.T. a free, appropriate public education when the district (1) allegedly wrongfully determined that E.T.'s conduct was not a manifestation of his disability, and (2) allegedly did not provide E.T. special education and related services following the MDR.” (Id. ¶ 12). The ALJ bifurcated the issues in the case and convened an expedited hearing on the question of whether the Sampson County Schools correctly determined that E.T.'s October 2021 conduct was not a manifestation of E.T.'s disability. The hearing before the ALJ spanned seven days, at which the Board presented testimony of four witnesses, and the parents presented testimony of three witnesses. Following the hearing, the ALJ issued the underlying decision, dated March 28, 2022, reversing the manifestation determination, invalidating the long-term suspension, ordering E.T. placed back into Roseboro-Salemburg Middle School, and declaring the parents “the prevailing party on the manifestation determination” issue. (DE 1-1 at 52).^[6]

COURT'S DISCUSSION

A. Standard of Review

A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1) may either 1) assert the complaint fails to state facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction may be based, or 2) attack the existence of subject matter jurisdiction in fact, apart from the complaint. Adams v. Bain, 697 F.2d 1213, 1219 (4th Cir. 1982). Where a defendant raises a “facial challenge[ ] to [subject matter jurisdiction] that do[es] not dispute the jurisdictional facts alleged in the complaint,” the court accepts “the facts of the complaint as true as [the court] would in context of a Rule 12(b)(6) challenge.” Kenny v. Wilson, 885 F.3d 280, 287 (4th Cir. 2018). When a defendant challenges the factual predicate of subject matter jurisdiction, a court “is to regard the pleadings' allegations as mere evidence on the issue, and may consider evidence outside the pleadings without converting the proceeding to one for summary judgment.” Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac R. Co. v. United States, 945 F.2d 765, 768 (4th Cir. 1991).

“To survive a motion to dismiss” under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). “Factual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. In evaluating whether a claim is stated, “[the] court accepts all well-pled facts as true and construes these facts in the light most favorable to the plaintiff,” but does not consider “legal conclusions, elements of a cause of action, . . . bare assertions devoid of further factual enhancement[,] . . . unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments.” Nemet Chevrolet, Ltd. v. Consumeraffairs.com, Inc., 591 F.3d 250, 255 (4th Cir. 2009).^[7]

B. Analysis

1. Subject Matter Jurisdiction in Review Case

The parents contend that this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to provide the Board with the relief it seeks in the Review Case, particularly where it seeks a finding that the MDR was “substantively appropriate” and “procedurally appropriate,” and where it seeks an order vacating the ALJ's decision. (Parents' Mem. (DE 12) at 12). The court disagrees.

IDEA provides that “any party aggrieved by the findings and decision” by a state education agency, such as the underlying decision by the ALJ in the instant case “shall have the right to bring a civil action with respect to the complaint presented” to the ALJ, which action may be brought in federal district court. 20 U.S.C. § 1415(i)(2)(A). “The complaint, and therefore the civil action, may concern ‘any matter relating to the identification, evaluation, or educational placement...