Thompson v. Oakdale Schools et al

Filing 60

ORDER declining the plaintiff's request to strike Oakdale's Motion to Dismiss; denying 56 Oakdale's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Honorable Lee R. West on 1/7/13. (kw, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
ERIC THOMPSON, as parent and next friend )
of RT., a minor, and A.T., a minor,1
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
vs.
)
)
)
OAKDALE SCHOOLS, CONSOLIDATED
SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 29 OF OKLAHOMA )
COUNTY, et aI.,
)
)
)
Defendants.

FILED
JAN - '1 2013
ROBERT 0, q~NN

u.s, 0181. COURrfe~8
Sy"",.."-_",,

No. CIV-11-1335-W

ORDER
On November 1,2012, Eric Thompson, as parent and next friend of RT., a minor,
and A.T., a minor, filed a second amended complaint asserting claims against, among
other defendants, Oakdale Schools, Consolidated School District No. 29 of Oklahoma
County (IIOakdale"). The minor plaintiffs have sought relief against Oakdale under title 42,
section 1983 of the United States Code for alleged misconduct that occurred during the
2008-2009 school year. In particular, the minor plaintiffs have alleged in their amended
pleading that Oakdale violated and/or, together with its co-defendants, conspired to violate,
their rights under the first, fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States
Constitution.
The matter now comes before the Court on Oakdale's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs'
Second Amended Complaint. RT. and A.T. have responded in opposition.

1 Because

Eric Thompson is no longer asserting any claims on his own behalf, see Doc. 53
at 1 n.1, the Court has removed the reference to Eric Thompson's individual capacity from the title
of this action.

Oakdale has asserted only two grounds in support of its request for dismissal. Both
lack merit. First, despite the fact that RT. and A.T. have asserted no state law claims
against this defendant in the second amended complaint, Oakdale has argued that the
plaintiffs' state law tort claims are barred by the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act,
51 O.S. § 151 et seq.
Second, the Court has already determined that the federal law claims asserted on
behalf of the minor children are not time-barred and that the two-year limitations period
imposed by title 12, section 95(A)(3) has been tolled by the minor children's legal disability.
See Doc. 29 at 6-7 n.6. Oakdale's arguments that the minor plaintiffs' federal law claims
are time-barred therefore provides no basis for relief.
Accordingly, the Court
(1) DECLINES the plaintiffs' request under Rule 12(f), F.RCiv.P., to strike Oakdale's
Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint, but
(2) FINDS that Oakdale's Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint
[Doc. 56] filed on November 21,2012, should be and is hereby DENIED.
ENTERED this

'if!::.

day of January, 2013.

E R WEST
NITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2