K. v. Google LLC

Background

M. K., through his mother as guardian ad litem, sued Google LLC and the Fremont Unified School District based on alleged harms arising from the District’s use of a Google platform for remote learning during the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2020, M. K. was a student at a public elementary school in the District. After the school buildings closed, he attended school remotely using a Google platform. He used a Google account assigned by the District to access YouTube and Google Slide Show, and later used a Google Chromebook supplied by the District.

M. K. alleged that teachers could see his online activity during class and that Google gave the District and unidentified third parties access to that activity. He also alleged that a teacher received a sexually explicit communication from his account in January 2021, but that his account had been hacked and he did not send the message. A teacher then scheduled a parent-teacher call and imposed what the amended complaint described in different ways, including a removal from class and a suspension. M. K. eventually stopped attending school in the District. He alleged emotional distress, embarrassment, his parents’ lost income, and tutoring expenses.

Claims and arguments

M. K.’s first amended complaint asserted one claim against the District for “failure to protect.” He alleged that the District suspended him in violation of California Education Code § 48900.5 because the suspension was imposed by a teacher rather than a principal or superintendent. He sought a declaration that the District must offer an alternative education that did not require him to use Google’s platforms, as well as damages for emotional distress and reputational harm caused by alleged negligence.

The District moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim. The District argued that the claim exceeded the permitted scope of amendment, was inadequately pleaded, involved discretionary disciplinary decisions protected by California immunity law, and did not plead compliance with the Government Tort Claims Act. M. K. disputed those arguments and later addressed whether the Eleventh Amendment barred his claim.

Eleventh Amendment immunity

The court did not decide whether M. K. adequately stated a state-law “failure to protect” claim under California Education Code § 48900.5. Instead, it held that the claim was barred by sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. Sovereign immunity generally limits when a state or an entity treated as an arm of the state may be sued in federal court.

The court relied on Ninth Circuit precedent holding that California school districts are arms of the state and therefore are entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. M. K. argued that immunity did not apply because he sought declaratory relief and, during the hearing, said he had withdrawn his request for damages against the District. The court rejected that argument for three reasons. First, the amended complaint still requested damages for emotional distress and reputational harm. Second, the court found it unclear how prospective relief could remedy a 2021 suspension after M. K. had left the District before the end of the 2020–2021 school year. Third, even if M. K. could seek declaratory or injunctive relief, immunity would still apply because his claim was based only on state law.

Request to amend

M. K. asked to amend the complaint to substitute the District’s superintendent for the District. He relied on an exception that can allow prospective injunctive claims against state officials for ongoing violations of federal law even when claims against the state itself are barred.

The court held that the proposed amendment would be futile. The claim at issue alleged a violation of state law, not federal law, so the exception did not apply. The court also noted that there was no suggestion that the District had consented to federal jurisdiction.

Disposition

The court granted the Fremont Unified School District’s motion to dismiss and dismissed M. K.’s state-law “failure to protect” claim against the District because it was barred by sovereign immunity. Because the Eleventh Amendment limits federal-court jurisdiction, the dismissal was without prejudice to M. K.’s ability to assert the state-law claim in a competent state forum. The opinion states that Google’s separate motion to dismiss would be addressed in another order.