A federal judge from the Western District of New York has dismissed the claim of the mother of a student athlete, finding that she should not have been suing on behalf of her son, since he was likely over the age of 18 when the lawsuit was filed.
The lawsuit, which was filed by plaintiff Michelle Capellupo on September 6, 2013, alleged that the Webster Central School District and hockey coach David Evans violated Stephen Capellupo’s rights under the Equal Protection Clause when Evans relegated Capellupo to the junior varsity (JV) team.
Specifically, the complaint charged that “Evans’ failure to select plaintiff for the varsity team was an abuse of Evans’ power that had a deleterious effect on (Capellupo’s) future as a hockey player.”
Capellupo actually made the varsity team at Webster Thomas High School as a freshman in 2008. But he was soon demoted to the JV, allegedly because he was struggling with his grades. After remaining on the JV, where he “dominated,” according to the plaintiff, for his sophomore and junior season, Capellupo’s parents decided enough was enough.
They met with the district superintendent, who promised to talk to Evans, who at the time had won five Section V championships as well as a state championship in 2008.
Capellupo played for the JV again as a senior, sparking claims that Evans retaliated and leading to plaintiff ultimately filing a lawsuit.
The defendants moved to dismiss on varied grounds. The most persuasive angle centered on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and the evidence they proffered that Capellupo was born in early September 1994, making him at least 18 years old (and possibly 19 years old) at the time the action was commenced. This would constitute a lack of standing.
“Here, although the complaint alleges that S.C. is under the age of 18, it does so in a conclusory fashion, without reference to his birthday or providing his actual age,” wrote the court. “By contrast, the defendants have provided specific information regarding S.C.’s birthday that shows he was an adult on September 6, 2013, when this action was commenced. This information was obtained from records made and kept by defendant Webster Central School District in the ordinary course of business and its accuracy has been duly sworn to by the Clerk for the Webster Central School District’s Board of Education, who personally reviewed the records.
“Notably, the plaintiff failed to respond to the defendants’ motion or to submit any evidence that S.C. was a minor at the time this action was commenced. The defendants’ position is also supported by the allegations in the complaint that S.C. was a high school freshman in November 2008 and a high school senior in 2012, thus suggesting that by September 6, 2013, when the action was commenced, S.C. had graduated from high school. The court need not credit the plaintiff’s conclusory allegation that S.C. was under the age of 18 when this action was commenced because it is contradicted by the evidence.
“The plaintiff does not have standing to maintain the claims she attempts to bring on behalf of her adult child and this court lacks jurisdiction over this matter. Because the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction, it will not consider the merits-based arguments raised by the defendants because to do so would be an exercise of jurisdiction.”
Michelle Capellupo, Natural Parent, & Legal Guardian on Behalf of S.C., v. Webster Central School District et al.; W.D.N.Y.; 13-CV-6481 EAW, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 170912; 12/9/14
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiff) Pro se, Webster, NY. (for defendants) Charles E. Symons, LEAD ATTORNEY, Ferrara, Fiorenza, Larrison, Barrett & Reitz, P.C., East Syracuse, NY.
