N.Y. v. San Ramon Valley Unified School District

Background

N.Y., previously a student at San Ramon Valley High School, alleged that defendants violated his federal and state rights in connection with a 2017 student election and events afterward. He alleged that, while running for Associated Student Body President, he and friends created a campaign video at a friend’s home and uploaded it to a student’s personal YouTube page. The video depicted N.Y. as a hero rescuing a person kidnapped by members of an extremist group; two friends who were practicing Muslims played the antagonists.

The election rules stated that students should use discretion in creating campaign signs and slogans because inappropriate material could be removed and a candidate could be removed from the election. N.Y. alleged that defendants found the video inappropriate, removed him as Junior Class President, expelled him from the Leadership Class, and disqualified him from the election even though he received the most votes. He also alleged that, after the District restored some of his positions and allowed him to return to the Leadership Class, defendants retaliated by withholding his semester grades and transferring the powers and privileges of the ASB President to another student.

N.Y. asserted federal claims under the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, equal-protection principles, Section 1983, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He also asserted state-law claims under California’s Bane Act, California Education Code section 48950, and California tort law.

Court’s analysis

The Administration Defendants argued that the school-speech standard from Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier applied to the video and that some defendants were entitled to qualified immunity. The court found that argument premature at the motion-to-dismiss stage because the complaint did not allege facts showing that the video was school-sponsored or reasonably appeared to carry the school’s approval. The court also found that the complaint did not allege personal involvement by Superintendent Rick Schmitt or Director of Education Services Jason Reimann in the original punishment.

The court therefore dismissed the Second Cause of Action, alleging punishment for protected speech, only as asserted against Schmitt and Reimann. It dismissed the Third Cause of Action, alleging retaliation for creating and uploading the video and for pursuing legal action, only as asserted against Schmitt. It dismissed the Fourth Cause of Action, alleging due-process violations based on the vague campaign rule and failure to follow required procedures before removing N.Y. from the Leadership Class, only as asserted against Schmitt and Reimann.

The court dismissed the Fifth Cause of Action, alleging unequal treatment based on speech, race, and religion, as asserted against Schmitt, Reimann, Ruth Steele, Jamie Keith, Dearborn Ramos, and Bernie Phelan. It dismissed the Sixth Cause of Action, alleging race discrimination under Title VI, against those same defendants. The court noted that the claims were not dismissed in all respects, including because Willford had not challenged the federal claims and the complaint’s claims against her remained at issue.

For the Seventh Cause of Action, a Bane Act claim based on interference with federal and state free-speech rights, the court dismissed the claim as asserted against Janet Willford, Schmitt, and Reimann. The court reasoned that the allegations against Willford involved speech alone without a threat of violence, while the allegations against Schmitt and Reimann lacked sufficient factual support. The court dismissed the Eighth Cause of Action, another Bane Act claim based on the statutory right to student free speech, against the same three defendants.

The court dismissed the Ninth Cause of Action, alleging intentional infliction of emotional distress, as asserted against Schmitt, Reimann, Steele, Jason Krolikowski, Keith, Ramos, and Phelan. It did not dismiss that claim to the extent it was asserted against Willford or, consequently, against the District based on Willford’s alleged conduct. The court dismissed the Tenth Cause of Action, alleging negligent infliction of emotional distress, because the complaint did not allege negligent conduct. It also dismissed the Eleventh Cause of Action, alleging invasion of privacy, because the complaint did not identify sufficient facts showing that a particular defendant disclosed N.Y.’s private information.

The court dismissed the request for punitive damages only to the extent it was asserted against Schmitt. It found the request premature as to the other individual Administration Defendants because claims against them remained.

Disposition

The court expressly granted the defendants’ motions to dismiss in part and denied them in part. Specifically, it dismissed the Second through Ninth Causes of Action only to the extents listed above, dismissed the Tenth and Eleventh Causes of Action, and dismissed the punitive-damages request to the extent asserted against Schmitt. In all other respects, the motions were denied.

Because the deficiencies identified in the motions were potentially curable, the court gave N.Y. limited leave to file a Fifth Amended Complaint solely to address those deficiencies, with a deadline of November 22, 2019.