E.M. v. California Department of Education

Background

E.M. began seventh grade at University Preparatory Academy, a charter school in Santa Clara, in fall 2023. The complaint alleged that, after Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2023, classmates harassed E.M. because she identified as Jewish and Israeli-American and spoke Hebrew. The alleged incidents included accusations that Jews were terrorists, threats that classmates wanted E.M. to die, derogatory references to her as “Jew,” and other rumors and threats. E.M.’s parents reported their concerns to school administrators, but the complaint alleged that the school took no effective action. E.M. later withdrew from the school.

The complaint also alleged that E.M. and her mother spoke at a Santa Clara County school-board meeting and that E.M.’s mother filed a formal complaint with the Santa Clara County Office of Education. The complaint alleged that the county office, the California Department of Education, and other defendants failed to adequately respond.

E.M., Elisa Schweizer, and Shai Miller asserted 16 causes of action against various combinations of defendants, including the California Department of Education, University Preparatory Academy and its individual defendants, Santa Clara County education agencies, and individual officials. All defendants except Jessica Bonduris filed motions to dismiss.

Why the Court Dismissed the Complaint

The court first held that all three plaintiffs had not sufficiently alleged standing, which is the requirement that a plaintiff show a concrete injury that the defendant caused and that a court can remedy. The court found that E.M.’s parents had not adequately described a concrete and particularized injury. The court also held that E.M., a minor, could not proceed until a guardian ad litem or another appropriate representative was appointed to protect her interests.

The court separately found that the complaint did not provide the clear, defendant-specific facts required by the federal pleading rules. Although the complaint was 55 pages long, the court said it did not adequately identify which defendants violated which laws, what each defendant did or failed to do, how that conduct caused each plaintiff’s injury, or why each defendant was responsible for the requested remedies. The court specifically noted that some individual officials were not meaningfully connected to the alleged injuries and that several allegations were vague, conclusory, or repeated without supporting facts.

Specific Dispositions

The court dismissed Count X, under California Government Code § 11135, with prejudice as to all defendants. It concluded that the plaintiffs did not request equitable relief and that, because E.M. had withdrawn from the school, they could not show future harm that an injunction could address.

The court dismissed Count XI, under California Civil Code § 51, the Unruh Civil Rights Act, with prejudice as to all defendants. It held that public schools, their employees, and government actors are not covered by that statute when the school is performing its educational role.

The court dismissed Count XII, under California Civil Code § 51.7, the Ralph Civil Rights Act, with prejudice as to all defendants. It found that the defendants were school administrators, institutions, or supervising bodies, and that the complaint did not allege that they threatened or committed violent acts against E.M. or her parents.

The court dismissed Count XIII, under California Civil Code § 52.1, the Tom Bane Civil Rights Act, with prejudice as to all defendants. It held that the allegations were based on defendants’ failures to act, rather than affirmative acts involving threats, intimidation, or coercion.

The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ state-law claims against the California Department of Education without leave to amend based on state sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. It also dismissed the negligence claim against that department without leave to amend because, under the court’s analysis, California law does not impose common-law tort liability on public entities absent a statutory basis.

The court dismissed Count IX, under California Education Code § 220, against the individual defendants without leave to amend. It held that individuals do not qualify as an “educational institution” under that provision and therefore cannot be liable under it.

Result

The court granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss and dismissed the complaint with partial leave to amend. Plaintiffs could amend the non-futile portions of the complaint consistently with the order, and any amended complaint was due within 21 days of the order. The opinion does not state the ultimate merits of the remaining claims.