B.H., et al. v. Johnston County Board of Education

Filing 92

ORDER terminating 75 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; terminating 79 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law; terminating 80 Motion to Strike; terminating 83 Motion for Leave to File; granting 88 Motion for Leave to File an Am ended Motion for Judgment on the Administrative Record and Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit; and granting 90 Motion to Amend - The parties shall each file their respective amended motions for judgment as a matter of law no later than 31 July 2014. The amended motions shall supersede the original motions in their entirety. Responses to the amended motions for judgment as a matter of law shall be filed no later than 21 August 2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Gates on 07/10/2014. (Baker, C.)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
WESTERN DIVISION
5:12-CV-405-FL
B.H., by his parents T.H. and J.H.;
T.H.; and J.H.,
Plaintiffs,
v.
JOHNSTON COUNTY BOARD OF
EDUCATION,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

ORDER

This case comes before the court on the parties’ respective motions (D.E. 88, 90) for
leave to file amended motions for judgment as a matter of law to address new issues raised by
defendant’s recently filed answer to the amended complaint (D.E. 87). Defendant’s motion also
includes a request for leave to exceed the page limit in its memorandum in support of its
amended motion for judgment as a matter of law. For the reasons discussed below, the motions
for leave will be granted.
In support of their motion for leave, plaintiffs assert that the answer to the amended
complaint “contains an entirely new and greatly expanded prayer for relief that contains
‘allegations’ that dramatically changes [sic] its position on the fundamental issues in this case.”
(Pl.’s Mem. (D.E. 91) 2). Plaintiffs also contend that defendant has included “new stipulations
and contentions [that are] material to the disposition of this case and should be addressed directly
in Plaintiffs’ dispositive motion and supporting brief.” (Id. at 3). Defendant likewise asserts that
“the Amended Complaintand by extension the Answer to the Amended Complaintincludes
some allegations that are new altogether to these proceedings,” including information that
appears in neither the administrative record nor in the initial complaint. (Def.’s Mem. (D.E. 89)

3). The court concludes that the reasons stated by the parties constitute good cause for the filing
of amended motions for judgment as a matter of law.
The court further concludes that the complexity of this case, the lengthy administrative
proceedings below, and the voluminous administrative record justify permitting the parties to file
memoranda supporting their amended motions for judgment as a matter of law that exceed the
page limit specified in Local Civil Rule 7.2(e), E.D.N.C.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the parties’ motions for leave to file amended
motions for judgment as a matter of law and defendant’s request to exceed the page limit are
GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED as follows:
1.

The parties shall each file their respective amended motions for judgment as a

matter of law no later than 31 July 2014. The amended motions shall supersede the original
motions in their entirety.
2.

Responses to the amended motions for judgment as a matter of law shall be filed

no later than 21 August 2014.
3.

The Clerk is DIRECTED to terminate as moot the parties’ original motions for

judgment as a matter of law (D.E. 75, 79), the plaintiffs’ motion (D.E. 80) to strike defendant’s
memorandum in support of its original motion, and defendant’s motion (D.E. 83) for leave to
exceed the page limit in its memorandum in support of its original motion for judgment as a
matter of law.
4.

The parties are granted leave to file memoranda in support of their amended

motions for judgment as a matter of law up to 60 pages in length.

2

5.

Based on the court’s preliminary review of the plaintiffs’ memorandum in support

of their original motion for judgment as a matter of law, the court notes that plaintiffs have failed
to adequately cite to the specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the decisions of the
Administrative Law Judge (D.E. 65 at 541-608) and the State Hearing Officer (D.E. 66 at 11451) that they challenge, to adequately describe the basis for such challenges, and to cite the
specific evidence in the administrative record that supports their arguments. Plaintiffs shall
address this deficiency in their memorandum in support of their amended motion and otherwise
comply with Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1) in supporting their factual positions.
SO ORDERED, this the 10th day of July 2014.

_________________________
James E. Gates
United States Magistrate Judge

3