Justia U.S. 8th Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries

Two administrative hearing panels (Panels) concluded that the school district failed to provide plaintiffs' twin sons with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in 2005, pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., but did provide one in 2006. The district court upheld these decisions and later awarded attorney's fees to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs and the school district cross appealed. The court held that the school district offered the twins a FAPE in 2005 and therefore, reversed the award of a reduced attorney's fee. The court affirmed, however, the district court's ruling that plaintiffs waived or abandoned their appeal of the Panels' 2006 FAPE decision.

Plaintiff sued his former music teacher, the Logan-Rogersville R-VII School District, and the school principal, asserting nine different claims stemming from the teacher's alleged sexual abuse of plaintiff. At issue was whether the district court erred in dismissing plaintiff's claims and denying his motion to amend his complaint. The court held that the district court correctly concluded that Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were time-barred where plaintiff's complaint established that his cause of action accrued in 1992 when he was 15 years old, the statute of limitations was tolled until his 21st birthday, and he had five years, until November 22, 2003, to file his complaint. The court also held that plaintiff's claims under 42 U.S.C. 1983 and Title IX were also time-barred where both claims relied on the state's statute of limitations governing personal-injury claims and Missouri imposed a five-year statute of limitations for personal injury actions, Mo. Rev. Stat. 516.120.4. For the same reasons, plaintiff's state-law claims were time barred by section 516.120.4. The court further held that the district court's dismissal of plaintiff's childhood sexual abuse claim was affirmed where Mo. Rev. Stat. 537.046 required him to commence his action within five years of his 18th birthday. The court finally held that the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's sexual abuse claim against the school district and principal and the district court did not err in denying as futile plaintiff's motion to amend. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Appellant filed suit against the Fayetteville, Arkansas School District (District) alleging he was a victim of sexual harassment in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. 1681. At issue was whether the district court erroneously instructed the jury and further erred in empaneling a twelve-member jury as oppose to a six-member jury. The court held that the district court did not abuse its discretion because the instruction provided by the district court accurately portrayed the law underlying appellant's Title IX claim where the "harasser must be motivated by [appellant's] gender or his failure to conform to stereotypical male characteristics" and because appellant was not entitled to an instruction on his theory of the case since it did not comport with the law where mere name-calling and rumors with sexual connotations were insufficient to provide relief under Title IX. The court also held that appellant's argument regarding the district court's error in empaneling a twelve-member jury had no merit where the district court had discretion to select "at least 6 and no more than 12 members" for a jury. Accordingly, the judgment was affirmed.

Plaintiff, an eleven-year-old special education student, lived in the Minnesota Independent School District No. 15 (district). An ALJ for the Minnesota Department of Education determined that the district had denied plaintiff a free appropriate public education (FAPE) within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400-1482. After plaintiff filed an action in federal court seeking attorney fees and costs, both parties filed cross-motions for judgment on the administrative record. The district court reversed the ALJ's decision and denied plaintiff's motion for fees and costs and plaintiff appealed. The court affirmed the district court's judgment and held that plaintiff was not denied a FAPE where the district court did not fail to give "due weight" to the results of the administrative hearing; where the district court did not commit procedural violations of the IDEA; and where the district court did not violate the IDEA's substantive requirements.

D.J.M., a student in the Hannibal Public School District #60 (district), sent instant messages from his home to a classmate in which he talked about getting a gun and shooting some other students at school. After D.J.M. was subsequently suspended for ten days and later for the remainder of the school year as a result of his actions, D.J.M.'s parents sued under 42 U.S.C. 1983, alleging that the district violated D.J.M.'s First Amendment rights. At issue was whether the district court properly granted summary judgment to the district on D.J.M.'s constitutional claims and remanded his state claim for administrative review. The court held that D.J.M. intentionally communicated his threats to a third party and the district court did not err in finding that they were true threats. The court also held that true threats were not protected under the First Amendment and the district was given enough information that it reasonably feared D.J.M. had access to a handgun and was thinking about shooting specific classmates at the high school. Therefore, in light of the district's obligation to ensure the safety of its students and reasonable concerns created by shooting deaths at other schools, the district court did not err in concluding that the district did not violate the First Amendment by notifying the police and subsequently suspending him after he was placed in juvenile detention. The court further held that it was reasonably foreseeable that D.J.M.'s threats would be brought to the attention of school authorities and created a risk of substantial disruption within the school environment. The court finally held that it was not an abuse of discretion to dismiss the state law claim as moot. Accordingly, the judgment of the court was affirmed.

The ACLU sued public charter school Tarek ibn Ziyad Academy (TIZA) and other defendants for violations of the Establishment Clause. At issue was whether the parents of students who attended TIZA had standing to intervene on behalf of the children and, in the alternative, whether the motion to intervene was timely. The court held that the parents had Article III standing where the parents have alleged an injury in fact, facts showing that the injury was imminent, the injury was fairly traceable to defendant's conduct, and redressability. The court held, however, that the district court did not make a clear error in finding the motion untimely where it was evident that for fourteen months, the parents were content to remain aloof from the litigation and dependent on TIZA to adequately represent their interests despite their knowledge of the case and its progress. The court further denied the ACLU's motion to supplement the record on appeal because the material proffered would not affect the outcome of the trial and denied the ACLU's motion to seal because it was moot. Accordingly, the court affirmed the district court's denial of the parents' motion to intervene.

Appellants, on behalf of their disabled daughter, appealed the district court's finding that the Fort Osage R-1 School District ("school district") offered the daughter a free appropriate public education ("FAPE") within the meaning of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. 1400, et seq., for the 2006-2007 school year. Appellants sought reimbursement for their costs of placing their daughter at a private facility during the school year. The court held that the district court did not err in concluding that the school district offered the daughter a FAPE and that the Individualized Education Plan put forward by the school district did not suffer from any procedural error. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.

Plaintiffs sued defendant in state court alleging that defendant violated a number of its statutory and common-law duties while managing plaintiffs' assets. Defendant filed a notice of removal with the district court, arguing that the diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction statute, 28 U.S.C. 1332(a)(1), gave the district court original jurisdiction over the action. At issue was whether the district court erroneously granted plaintiffs' motions to remand to state court. The court held that, after considering plaintiffs' relative lack of Independence from the State of Missouri as well as the potential impact that a money judgment in plaintiffs' favor could have on the state's treasury, the court found that plaintiffs were merely an arm of the state and not "citizens" for purposes of section 1332(a)(1). Therefore, defendant failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the district court had original jurisdiction over the case and the district court's orders to remand the case to state court were affirmed.

Plaintiff filed a 42 U.S.C. 1983 action against defendants alleging that defendants violated plaintiff's rights under the First Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by refusing plaintiff equal access to defendant's "Backpack Flyers for Students" program. At issue was whether the district court erred in denying plaintiff's claims for injunctive relief and damages on the merits. The court held that the district court did not err in finding that plaintiff's First Amendment rights were not violated; that a limited public forum could be limited to use by certain groups or dedicated solely to the discussion of certain subjects and a public entity could impose reasonable and viewpoint neutral restrictions on speech in the forum; that restrictions on plaintiff's access to the program was viewpoint neutral and did not impose a substantial restriction on plaintiff's access to the forum; and that the school official did not exercise unbridled discretion in managing the program.

Plaintiff, a former Nelnet, Inc. ("Nelnet") loan advisor, alleged that certain Nelnet marketing practices were continuing violations of the Federal Family Education Loan Program ("FFELP") established under Part B of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. 1071, that rendered Nelnet liable under the False Claims Act ("FCA"), 31 U.S.C. 3729(a). Plaintiff joined JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Citigroup, Inc. as defendants alleging they were knowing participants in a conspiracy to submit false claims. At issue was whether the district court properly dismissed plaintiff's third amended complaint. The court affirmed the dismissal and held that there was no abuse of discretion in dismissing plaintiff's claims where plaintiff failed to plead fraud with sufficient particularity and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b).