T, et al v. Department of Education, State of Hawai'i
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS re: 54 . Signed by JUDGE LESLIE E. KOBAYASHI on 7/24/2013. (afc)CERTIFICATE OF SERVICEParticipants registered to receive electronic notifications received this document electronically at the e-mail address listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF). Participants not registered to receive electronic notifications were served by first class mail on the date of this docket entry
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
I.T., by and through his
parents Renee and Floyd T.,
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
STATE OF HAWAII,
CIVIL NO. 11-00676 LEK-KSC
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
On September 11, 2012, this Court issued its Amended
Order Affirming in Part and Vacating and Remanding in Part the
Hearings Officer’s October 6, 2011 Decision (“9/11/12 Order” and
[Dkt. no. 31.]
On October 3, 2012, this
Court issued an order staying the case in light of the remand to
the hearings officer.
[Dkt. no. 33 (minutes).]
hearings officer issued the decision on remand, the parties filed
a Joint Request to Set a Status Conference and Lift the Stay
Pursuant to Minutes Filed October 3, 2012 (“Joint Request”).
[Filed 6/13/13 (dkt. no. 47).]
On June 27, 2013, this Court
issued an EO granting the Joint Request and granting Plaintiff
I.T., by and through his parents Renee and Floyd T. (all
collectively, “Plaintiffs”), leave to file an amended complaint
that would “include Plaintiffs’ appeal from the
hearings officer’s decision on remand.”
[Dkt. no. 51 at 1.]
Plaintiffs filed their First Amended Complaint on July 5, 2013.
[Dkt. no. 52.]
On July 19, 2013, Defendant Department of Education,
State of Hawai`i (“Defendant”) filed its Motion to Dismiss
[Dkt. no. 54.]
Defendant argues that the First
Amended Complaint improperly seeks reconsideration of this
Court’s rulings in the 9/11/12 Order regarding the 10/6/11
Defendant contends that the First Amended Complaint
should be limited to the contested issues in the hearings
officer’s decision on remand.
Defendant’s argument is misplaced.
This Court agrees with Defendant that only issues
related to the hearings officer’s decision on remand are
currently before this Court.
This Court will not reconsider its
rulings on the other issues in the 9/11/12 Order.
9/11/12 Order, however, did not resolve all of the issues raised
in Plaintiffs’ original Complaint, filed on November 4, 2011.
Thus, this Court could not issue a final judgment, and Plaintiffs
have not had the opportunity to appeal the rulings in the 9/11/12
If this Court’s order addressing the issues related to
the decision on remand resolves all of the remaining issues in
the First Amended Complaint, this Court will direct the entry of
The Court finds this matter suitable for disposition
without a hearing pursuant to Rule LR7.2(d) of the Local Rules of
Practice of the United States District Court for the District of
Hawai`i (“Local Rules”).
final judgment in this case.
The judgment will reference all of
the substantive orders in this case, and any party dissatisfied
with any of this Court’s rulings make take an appeal at that
As a general rule, “when a plaintiff files an amended
complaint, ‘[t]he amended complaint supercedes the original, the
latter being treated thereafter as non-existent.’”
Robinson, 621 F.3d 1002, 1005 (9th Cir. 2010) (alteration in
Rhodes) (quoting Loux v. Rhay, 375 F.2d 55, 57 (9th Cir. 1967)).
Thus, if Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint only included claims
related to the hearings officer’s decision on remand, Plaintiffs’
claims related to the 10/6/11 Decision, alleged only in the
original Complaint, would be considered non-existent.
to preserve Plaintiffs’ right to appeal rulings in this Court’s
9/11/12 Order about the 10/6/11 Decision, Plaintiffs were
required to re-allege their claims challenging the 10/6/11
This Court therefore DENIES Defendant’s Motion to the
extent that the Motion asks this Court to dismiss claims in the
First Amended Complaint related to the 10/6/11 Decision.
Defendant also urges this Court to dismiss the First
Amended Complaint because it includes impermissible “shotgun”
pleading, does not provide Defendant with sufficient notice of
Plaintiffs’ claims, and does not plead the facial plausibility
required by Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007),
and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 663 (2009).
disagrees because Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint is more in
the nature of a notice of appeal.
The allegations in the First
Amended Complaint are sufficient to alert Defendants to
Plaintiffs’ challenges to the hearings officer’s decisions.
Further, the Court notes that Plaintiffs will file an opening
brief that sets forth their specific challenges to the decision
Thus, based upon the nature of the procedures in IDEA
appeals and based upon the relationship between the factual
allegations and the legal issues that Plaintiffs have raised,
this Court CONCLUDES that the First Amended Complaint is
On the basis of the foregoing, Defendant’s Motion to
Dismiss, filed July 19, 2013, is HEREBY DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED AT HONOLULU, HAWAII, July 24, 2013.
/S/ Leslie E. Kobayashi
Leslie E. Kobayashi
United States District Judge
I.T., ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, ETC.; CIVIL NO. 11-00676
LEK-KSC; ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
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?