K.I. et al v. Montgomery Public Schools
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 MOTION to Strike Plaintiffs' Demand for Jury Trial; granting the motion with respect to the IDEA claims and denying with respect to the rehabilitation act claims, as further set out in order. Signed by Hon. Chief Judge Mark E. Fuller on 2/5/10. (Attachments: # 1 civil appeals checklist)(djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA OF N O R T H E R N DIVISION K .I., by and through her mother and next f rie n d , Jennie I., et al., P l a i n t if f s , v. M O N T G O M E R Y PUBLIC SCHOOLS, D e f e n d a n t. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:06-CV-905-MEF (WO)
M E M O R A N D U M OPINION AND ORDER T h is case is presently before the Court on a Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demand for a Jury Trial (Doc. # 66), which Defendant filed on November 11, 2008. The Court has c a r e f u lly considered the submissions of the parties together with the applicable authorities. U p o n consideration of those materials and for the reasons set forth below, the Court finds th a t the Motion to Strike Plaintiffs' Demand for a Jury Trial is due to be granted in part and d e n ied in part. D IS C U S S IO N P lain tiff s filed the initial Complaint on October 6, 2006. (Doc. # 1.) Defendant timely a n sw e re d . (Doc. # 3.) After over two years of litigation, Plaintiffs timely filed an Amended C o m p la in t on October 14, 2008. (Doc. # 63.) The Amended Complaint contains claims a ris in g under both the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"), 20 U.S.C. § 1 4 0 0 et seq., and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794. (Doc. # 63 ¶ 1.) It also
" d e m a n d s trial by struck jury," but does not specify whether that demand is as to both claims o r only one. The Court therefore assumes the demand is as to all the claims set out in the A m e n d e d Complaint. Defendant Montgomery Public Schools moved to strike the demand for jury trial on N o v e m b e r 11, 2008. (Doc. # 66.) In the motion, Defendant argues that because this case is a n appeal of a special education due process hearing pursuant to the IDEA, and there is no ju ry trial right in IDEA cases, the Court should strike the demand. Plaintiffs respond that the A m e n d e d Complaint contains a claim under § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and a prayer for re lief in the form of compensatory damages, which cause of action carries with it a c o n stitu tio n a l right to a trial by jury. Plaintiffs do not contest Defendant's assertion that no ju ry trial right exists for IDEA cases. The Court finds that the Motion to Strike Jury Trial is due to be granted in part and d e n ie d in part. First, with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the Rehabilitation Act, the E le v e n th Circuit has held that "suits under § 504 provide to plaintiffs the full spectrum of re m e d ie s , such that in appropriate § 504 cases, the Seventh Amendment allows a jury trial," an d that a plaintiff's demand for compensatory damages creates a Seventh Amendment jury tria l right in § 504 cases. Waldrop v. S. Co. Servs., Inc., 24 F.3d 152, 157 (11th Cir. 1994). T h e re f o re , it is clear that Plaintiffs, upon their proper and timely demand, are entitled by the S e v e n th Amendment as applied by the Eleventh Circuit to a trial by jury on their R e h a b ilitatio n Act claim. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Strike is due to be denied to th e extent it seeks a contrary outcome. Second, Plaintiffs did not and cannot dispute that no jury trial right exists for their -2-
ID E A claims, as only injunctive relief and equitable damages are available under that statute. W h iteh e a d v. School Bd. of Hillsborough County, 918 F. Supp. 1515, 1523 (M.D. Fla. 1996) (" sin c e only injunctive relief and equitable damages are allowed under IDEA, remedies for w h ich a jury trial is not available under the Seventh Amendment, Plaintiffs' request for a jury tr i a l on Count II would be denied.") Because no jury trial right exists for Plaintiffs' IDEA c la im s , the demand for jury trial of those claims is due to be stricken and Defendant's Motion to strike the same is due to be granted insofar as it seeks this result. C O N C L U SIO N F o r the reasons set forth above, it hereby ORDERED that the Motion to Strike P la in tif f s' Demand for Jury Trial (Doc. # 66) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The M o tio n is granted with respect to the IDEA claims and denied with respect to the R e h a b ilita tio n Act claims, as more fully set out above. DONE this the 5th day of February, 2010.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?