K.S. v. Rhode Island Board of Education et al

Filing 50

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 36 Motion to Certify Class. So Ordered by Chief Judge William E. Smith on 3/17/2016. (Jackson, Ryan)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND
___________________________________
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
R.I. BOARD OF EDUCATION, ET AL.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
___________________________________)
K.S. and K.L., through her parent
L.L., on behalf of a class of
those similarly situated,

C.A. No. 14-77 S

ORDER
WILLIAM E. SMITH, Chief Judge.
Before

the

Court

is

Plaintiffs’

Certification (“Plaintiffs’ Motion”).
defendants

objected

to

Plaintiffs’

Motion

(ECF No. 36.)
Motion

certification of the statewide putative class.

with

for

Class

None of the
respect

to

Accordingly, the

Court GRANTS this portion of Plaintiffs’ Motion without objection.
Defendant Chariho Regional School Committee (“Chariho”) filed an
Objection pertaining only to the Chariho Subclass (ECF No. 48),
and Plaintiffs filed a Reply (ECF No. 49).

For the reasons that

follow, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion with respect to the
Chariho Subclass.
This putative class action concerns the right to a free and
appropriate public education (“FAPE”) under the Individuals With
Disabilities Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1400, et seq., between the

ages of 21 and 22.

Plaintiffs seek to certify a statewide class

defined as follows:
All individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two
years before the filing of this action or will turn 21
during the pendency of this action who are provided or
were provided a FAPE under the IDEA by any [Local
Education Agency] in the State of Rhode Island and who,
but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or would
have qualified for a FAPE until age 22 because they have
not or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma
(“the Class”).
(Pls.’ Mot. 5, ECF No. 36.)

Plaintiff K.L., through L.L., also

seeks certification of the following subclass:
All individuals who were over 21 and under 22 within two
years before the filing of this action or will turn 21
during the pendency of this action who are provided or
were provided a FAPE under the IDEA by Chariho and who,
but for turning 21, would otherwise qualify or would
have qualified for a FAPE until age 22 because they have
not or had not yet earned a regular high school diploma
(“the Chariho Subclass”).
(Id. at 6.) 1
“Subclassing under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(c)(4) is appropriate
only

when

the

litigation.”

court

believes

it

will

materially

improve

Clark Equip. Co. v. Int’l Union, Allied Indus.

Workers of Am., AFL-CIO, 803 F.2d 878, 880 (6th Cir. 1986).
the

absence

of

conflicts

between

members

of

the

[]

“In

Class,

subclasses are neither necessary, useful, nor appropriate.”

1

the

In

Plaintiff K.S. also sought to certify a subclass of students
in Warwick (Pls.’ Mot. 5-6, ECF No. 36); however, K.S., has since
been dismissed from the case, and therefore this claim is moot.
(See Order, Nov. 30, 2015, ECF No. 46.)
2

re: Oil Spill by Oil Rig “Deepwater Horizon” in Gulf of Mexico, on
Apr. 20, 2010, 910 F. Supp. 2d 891, 918 (E.D. La. 2012), aff’d sub
nom. In re Deepwater Horizon, 739 F.3d 790 (5th Cir. 2014).
District

courts

subclasses.”

have

“considerable

discretion

in

utilizing

In re: Cendant Corp. Sec. Litig., 404 F.3d 173, 202

(3d Cir. 2005).
Chariho objects to certification of the Chariho Subclass
because “K.L. has not sustained her burden of explaining why a
Chariho subclass is necessary” as “[e]very member of the putative
Chariho subclass is a member of the putative statewide class.”
(Chariho’s Obj. 1, ECF No. 48-1.)

The Court agrees.

Plaintiffs

do not identify any conflict among the class members; instead,
they

claim

the

subclass

will

supposedly

better

facilitate

compliance if they prevail in the underlying action. (See Pls.’
Reply 2, ECF No. 49 (“If a subclass were certified against Chariho,
this Court would have jurisdiction to directly ensure that Chariho
complies

with

the

Court’s

decision.”).)

Plaintiffs

do

not,

however, cite any authority in support of the proposition that a
subclass can be certified solely for purposes of enforcement. 2 The

2

Nor is it clear that the subclass would actually facilitate
enforcement as Plaintiffs claim.
Chariho notes that the Rhode
Island Department of Education “exercises all powers as a matter
of both federal and state law when it comes to compliance with the
IDEA, and Chariho controls nothing.” (Chariho’s Obj. 9, ECF No.
ECF No. 48-1.) Indeed, Plaintiffs concede that “the Board does
have various mechanisms available to ensure that [local education
3

Court concurs with Chariho that certifying the Chariho Subclass
would serve no purpose, and would unnecessarily complicate the
litigation. 3
For these reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion is hereby GRANTED IN
PART and DENIED IN PART.

Specifically, Plaintiffs’ Motion to

certify the Class is GRANTED and their request to certify the
Chariho Subclass is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

William E. Smith
Chief Judge
Date: March 17, 2016

agencies] such as Chariho implement any order or decision this
Court may issue if Plaintiffs prevail in this action”; however,
they speculate that “such mechanisms are indirect and may be timeconsuming to fully implement.” (Pls.’ Reply 2, ECF No. 49.)
3

Accordingly, the Court need not reach Chariho’s argument
that the subclass fails to meet the numerosity requirement.
4