A.L. v. Pleasanton Unified School District

Background

A.L., through her parent and guardian ad litem, Joseph Lain, sued the Pleasanton Unified School District (PUSD) and the Contra Costa County Office of Education (CCCOE). The opinion states that A.L. has Wolf-Hirschhorn syndrome and that the defendants allegedly failed to provide her with an appropriate education.

The defendants again moved to dismiss two claims: breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing and fraud. These were the third motions to dismiss those claims. In earlier orders, the court dismissed both claims but allowed amendment. The court had previously found that the implied-covenant claim did not allege a conscious and deliberate act beyond an ordinary contract breach, and that the fraud claim did not adequately allege that the defendants’ statements were false when made.

Implied-Covenant Claim

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the implied-covenant claim. Under California law, the claim requires allegations of a conscious and deliberate act that unfairly frustrates the contract’s purposes and disappoints the other party’s reasonable expectations.

The second amended complaint added allegations about statements PUSD and CCCOE allegedly made in an August 2021 administrative proceeding. According to the complaint, the defendants stated in a declaration that A.L.’s 2019 Individualized Education Plan did not include a one-to-one educational aide. The complaint alleged that the parties understood the plan to require an aide able to address all of A.L.’s health and educational needs, while the replacement aide could handle only her health needs.

The court held that these allegations could amount to the required conscious and deliberate act. It also found it plausible that the statement conflicted with the contract’s purposes and the parties’ legitimate expectations because the March 2021 Settlement Agreement required the defendants to implement the operative education plan. Whether the alleged statement harmed A.L. and breached the implied covenant was a factual question for later proceedings.

Fraud Claim

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud claim. Fraud allegations must be pleaded with particularity, meaning the complaint must provide specific facts supporting the alleged fraud.

The plaintiffs added allegations that the same representatives negotiated the 2019 education plan and the March 2021 Settlement Agreement and later promoted what the plaintiffs called a false interpretation of those documents during the August 2021 administrative proceeding. The court concluded that these allegations showed, at most, that the representatives changed their position in August 2021. They did not show that the defendants’ statements were fraudulent when made during the March 2021 settlement negotiations.

Because the court had already allowed the plaintiffs to amend the fraud allegations twice, including once to address the same deficiency, it denied the plaintiffs leave to amend the fraud claim again. The opinion therefore granted the motion to dismiss the fraud claim and denied further amendment of that claim.

Disposition

The court vacated the August 18, 2023 motion hearing, denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss the breach-of-implied-covenant claim, and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the fraud claim without leave to amend. The opinion does not state that the entire case was dismissed.