A federal judge from the Western District of Oklahoma has granted a partial victory to a school district and various employees after considering their motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by a student athlete, who alleged that he was a victim of hazing and improper conduct by other students and defendant baseball coach Jayson Wilson.
Plaintiffs Jim and Peggy Culbertson are the parents of high school student L.C., who was the victim in this case. In the summer of 2007, L.C. began playing baseball for Fletcher High School. Fletcher Public Schools, Independent School District No. 9 is an organization existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, operating under the control and supervision of the Board of Education of Fletcher Public Schools (FBE). FBE is the governing body of Fletcher Public School District (FPSD).
The plaintiffs alleged that the aforementioned hazing and improper contact occurred while L.C. was a student at Fletcher Public Schools. They alleged that the members of the FBE, its superintendent, high school principal, assistant principals and athletic director all failed to properly supervise the coach and students, and failed to properly enforce policies prohibiting bullying and hazing. The plaintiffs further charged that these failures subject the defendants to official and individual liability for assault, battery, intentional infliction of emotional distress, false imprisonment, negligence, fraud, defamation, breach of fiduciary duty and official and individual liability for violating the Constitutional rights of L.C.
Each of the defendants moved to dismiss the plaintiffs’ claims.
Significantly, the court zeroed in on the individual defendants’ position that the claims against them in their official capacities should be dismissed because in actuality these claims are against the public entity defendant FPSD and are thus redundant. Specifically, the individual defendants argued that the only duty owed to the plaintiffs arises out of the context of their employment with FPSD, and thus should be dismissed. The Court agreed, dismissing the claims against the individual defendants in their official capacities.
The plaintiff’s sixth cause of action was one of fraud, “by omission and misrepresentation.” The defendants challenged that position, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to plead their allegations of fraud with specificity. “In particular, the defendants contend that the plaintiffs failed to set out specifically who committed the alleged fraud, what was said, where it occurred and when it occurred.”
The court agreed, finding the plaintiffs’ fraud claim “vague and lacking in specifics regarding which particular defendant participated in the alleged fraudulent conduct.” Such “vague and broad allegations fail to provide the respective defendants with adequate notice of their claim and the facts upon which it is based,” wrote the court in siding with the defendants.
Similarly, the court agreed with the defendants and their arguments on the plaintiffs’ stated “causes of action for the intentional torts of assault, battery, false imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress and defamation.” Specifically, it wrote that “there are no allegations that the administrative employees or board members ever committed any intentional torts against the plaintiffs.”
Next, the court turned to the plaintiffs’ causes of action for negligent supervision, negligence, gross negligence and negligence per se against FPSD, the individual members of the Board of Education, athletic director, Lonnie Sanders, principal, Wade Dietrich, superintendent, Kathryn Turner, principal, Julie Poteete, Shane Gilbreath, and Michael Wynne. On this argument, the court found that it was premature. that portion of the claim. “The plaintiffs have alleged facts to demonstrate that the individual defendants may have a duty to the student plaintiff such that plaintiffs’ claims for negligence, gross negligence and negligent supervision should proceed,” especially “at this early stage of litigation.”
The plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim was based on “L.C.’s Constitutional right to be free from bodily restraint and corporal punishment without due process of law.” The court dismissed the defendants’ argument on this point, finding that the plaintiffs have “sufficiently pled acts and/or omissions, which engender a degree of outrageousness and a magnitude of potential or actual harm inflicted upon the plaintiffs that is truly conscience shocking.
“Furthermore, the plaintiffs have alleged that the unconstitutional actions of named district employees were representative of an official policy or custom, or were carried out by an official with final policy making authority with respect to the challenged action. The defendants, therefore, are susceptible to liability under Section 1983. Accordingly, the court denies the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to the plaintiffs’ Section 1983 claim.”
Finally, the court granted the “alternative relief requested by the plaintiffs” to amend their complaint “to cure any defects.”
Jim Culbertson, et al. v. Fletcher Public School District, et al.; W.D.Okla.; Case No. CIV-11-138-M, 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 88646; 8/9/11
Attorneys of Record: (for plaintiffs) Steven W Crow, Delluomo & Crow, Oklahoma City, OK. (for defendants) F. Andrew Fugitt, Heather N Hendricks, Stephanie J Mather, The Center for Education Law, Oklahoma City, OK. Peter A Erdoes, Peck Erdoes & Wenzel PA, Oklahoma City, OK.
