G.C. et al v. South Washington County School District 833 et al

Filing 134

ORDER denying as moot 84 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot 93 Motion to Exclude Expert Testimony. (Written Opinion) Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 9/23/2019. (DLO)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 17-3680 (DSD/TNL)
G.C. and J.C. by their friend
and Mother Angela Tsiang,
Plaintiffs,
v.

ORDER

South Washington County School
District 833, and Dr. Keith Jacobus,
Superintendent of the South Washington
County School 833,
Defendants.
John J.E. Markham, II, Esq. and Markham & Read, One Commercial
Wharf West, Boston, MA 02110, counsel for plaintiffs.
John P. Edison, Esq., Michael J. Waldspurger, Esq. and
Rupp, Anderson, Squires & Waldspurger, 333 South Seventh
Street, Suite 2800, Minneapolis, MN 55402, counsel for
defendants.
This matter is before the court upon notice that plaintiff
G.C., by his next friend and mother Angela Tsiang, is no longer
attending a school within defendant South Washington County School
District 833 (the District).

Through this suit, plaintiff is

seeking

requiring

injunctive

relief

defendant

and

its

superintendent Dr. Keith Jacobus to make certain accommodations
because

G.C.

allegedly

suffers

from

Electromagnetic

Hypersensitivity Syndrome. 1

1

The new school’s technology policy appears to address most,
if not all, of plaintiff’s currently requested accommodations in
this suit. ECF No. 132 at 1-2.

Plaintiff initially requested an injunction requiring the
District to meet and confer with plaintiff’s parents to determine
reasonable accommodations to address G.C.=s disability.

At oral

argument on the District’s motions for summary judgment and to
exclude expert witness testimony, counsel for plaintiff clarified
that he seeks the following specific injunctive relief: (1) allow
G.C. to sit as far away from the Wi-Fi access point in the classroom
as possible; (2) allow G.C. to hook up an Ethernet cable for his
computer; (3) allow G.C. to go to the library and use the Ethernet
cable there if there is a classroom assignment that requires
Internet use; (4) turn down the Wi-Fi in G.C.=s classrooms; and (5)
allow G.C. to go to the nurse’s office when he does not feel well.
Before the court ruled on the District’s pending motions, plaintiff
filed noted that he no longer attends school in the District.
Under these circumstances, the court can no longer meaningfully
provide the relief he sought.
Plaintiff argues that the case is not moot despite the change
in schools and school districts because G.C. may want to attend
his previous school in the District in the future.

The District

agrees with plaintiff, arguing that the dispute could resurface in
the future.

The District further notes that it has already

expended substantial resources in defending this action.

The

court is mindful of the parties’ positions and the lengthy course
2

of this litigation, but nevertheless finds that the case is moot.
“It is of no consequence that the controversy was live at
earlier stages in this case; it must be live when we decide the
issues.”

South Dakota v. Hazen, 914 F.2d 147, 150 (8th Cir. 1990).

“When, during the course of litigation, the issues presented in a
case ‘lose their life because of the passage of time or a change
in circumstances .... and a federal court can no longer grant
effective

relief,’

the

case

is

considered

moot.”

Haden

v.

Pelofsky, 212 F.3d 466, 469 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting Beck v. Mo.
State High Sch. Activities Ass’n, 18 F.3d 604, 605 (8th Cir.
1994)).

“[I]f this case is indeed moot, we must refrain from

reaching the merits because any opinion issued would be merely
‘advisory’ and rest on hypothetical underpinnings.”

Missouri ex

rel. Nixon v. Craig, 163 F.3d 482, 484 (8th Cir. 1998).
Here, the court finds that it cannot grant effective relief
under

the

circumstances

accommodations,

if

presented.

ordered,

would

First,

be

wholly

the

requested

without

effect.

Plaintiff currently attends a different school in another school
district.

Thus,

nothing

ordered

by

the

plaintiff’s current educational setting.

court

would

affect

Plaintiff’s requested

accommodations are directed to his former school and, notably, the
specific symptoms he experienced while he attended that school.

3

Any accommodations he may seek from his new school are an entirely
separate matter.
Second,

the

court

has

little

confidence,

based

on

the

extensive record before it, 2 that the most recent list of requested
accommodations,

even

if

ordered,

would

be

satisfactory

to

plaintiff should he return to his previous school in the District.
Rather, the court finds it more likely that the injunctive relief
plaintiff currently seeks may no longer be fitting – or certainly
exhaustive - in the future.

The court is also concerned that

plaintiff’s symptoms may be different in kind or severity at a
later date given their current breadth and variability.

Under

these circumstances, the court concludes that the case is moot and
must be dismissed.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1.

The case is dismissed without prejudice; and

2.

The

pending

motions

are

denied

as

moot

without

prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: September 23, 2019
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

2

The court’s determination is informed by careful review of
the materials submitted with respect to the motions for summary
judgment and to exclude expert testimony.
4