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
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?