Posey v. San Francisco Unified School District

Background

Justin Posey and Adriana Herrera-Posey sued San Francisco Unified School District and individual defendants based on alleged abuse of their minor daughter, identified as Student A, while she was under the defendants’ supervision. The defendants moved to dismiss claims in the First Amended Complaint and moved to strike statements they described as immaterial. After considering the briefing and hearing oral argument, the court granted in part and denied in part the motions to dismiss and denied the motion to strike.

Title VI claim

The court dismissed the parents’ Title VI claim against the school district without leave to amend because the parents were not the intended beneficiaries of public schooling and the plaintiffs identified no authority allowing parents of an affected student to bring that claim.

The court denied the motion to dismiss Student A’s Title VI claim against the school district. The complaint plausibly alleged that another student physically and verbally abused Student A at school based on race, that the school district knew about the problem, and that the district failed to respond adequately. The court noted allegations that the district’s Office of Equity found that the response to the bullying was inadequate and untimely.

Other claims

The court dismissed the Unruh Civil Rights Act claim without leave to amend because public schools are not business establishments covered by that statute, and individual school employees are not covered on the allegations presented.

The court dismissed the breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim without leave to amend because the plaintiffs cited no authority, and the court found none, establishing a fiduciary relationship between a California school district and an individual student.

The court dismissed the substantive-due-process claim against the school district without prejudice, but without leave to amend, because a California school district is treated as an arm of the state protected by Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court dismissed the substantive-due-process claim against the individual defendants with leave to amend. The plaintiffs relied on exceptions to the general rule that the Due Process Clause does not require the state to protect people from third parties, including the state-created-danger exception. But the complaint did not plausibly allege that each individual defendant affirmatively placed Student A in a danger she would not otherwise have faced.

The court dismissed the negligence claim with leave to amend. The complaint grouped the defendants together and asserted multiple negligence theories without identifying facts showing what each defendant allegedly did. The court declined to decide the defendants’ immunity arguments because of this pleading problem. The court stated that all plaintiffs could amend the negligence claim, including the parents, who could potentially bring claims as direct victims if the school’s conduct interfered with their ability to protect their child.

The court dismissed the intentional-infliction-of-emotional-distress claim with leave to amend. The complaint did not identify the conduct attributable to each defendant, explain how that conduct was outrageous and intended or likely to cause emotional distress, or distinguish the alleged injuries of Student A from those of the parents.

Government Claims Act and standing

The court denied Defendant Fong’s argument that the claims against her were barred because the plaintiffs failed to comply with California’s Government Claims Act. The court found that the claim forms described the alleged bullying, the parents’ reports to school officials, and the school’s response sufficiently to substantially comply with the claim-presentation requirement.

The court also denied the defendants’ challenge to the parents’ Article III standing. It found that the parents plausibly alleged an injury to themselves because the defendants’ handling of the reported bullying allegedly interfered with their ability to make safety decisions for Student A and ultimately forced them to remove her from school.

Motion to strike and disposition

The court denied the defendants’ motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) to strike allegedly immaterial statements. The defendants did not show that the challenged statements were immaterial, particularly in relation to the claim involving a racially hostile environment.

The court stated that Student A’s Title VI claim against the school district was plausibly pleaded and that all other claims were dismissed under the terms specified in the order. Counts five and six were dismissed without leave to amend. Count one against the school district was dismissed without prejudice, but without leave to amend. Count one against the individual defendants and counts two and four against all defendants were dismissed with leave to amend. The plaintiffs could file an amended complaint by January 3, 2024.