L.K.M. et al v. Bethel School District et al

Filing 72

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' 68 MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION signed by Judge Benjamin H. Settle.(AMD)

Case 3:18-cv-05345-BHS Document 72 Filed 05/20/21 Page 1 of 5

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT TACOMA

6
7
8
9
10

CASE NO. C18-5345 BHS

L.K.M., et al.
Plaintiffs,

v.

BETHEL SCHOOL DISTRICT, et al.

11

ORDER DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION

Defendants.

12
13

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants Bethel School District et al.’s

14

motion for reconsideration. Dkt. 68. The Court has considered the pleadings filed in

15

support of and in opposition to the motion and the remainder of the file and hereby denies

16

the motion for the reasons stated herein.

17
18

I.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiff C.K.M. is intellectually disabled and was enrolled as a special education

19

student in the District at Bethel High School. Dkt 1-2, ¶ 3.1. Her mother and father,

20

Plaintiffs L.K.M. and J.M., bring suit against Defendants individually and on behalf of

21

C.K.M. Plaintiffs allege that C.K.M. was sexually assaulted and harassed by another

22

special education student (“David M.”) during the 2012–2013 school year. Id. ¶¶ 3.5,

ORDER - 1

Case 3:18-cv-05345-BHS Document 72 Filed 05/20/21 Page 2 of 5

1

3.17. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants knew that David M. had an extensive history of

2

sexual assaults against other special needs students and that Defendants failed to protect

3

C.K.M. from the known risk of harm. Id. ¶ 3.31.

4

On April 19, 2021, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’

5

motion for summary judgment after requesting supplemental briefing on particular issues.

6

Dkt. 65. The Court denied Defendants’ motion as to Plaintiffs’ 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Monell

7

claim against the District, concluding that a factfinder must determine if the

8

superintendent was delegated policymaking authority by the school board. Id. at 8–12.

9

On May 3, 2021, Defendants filed a timely motion for reconsideration. Dkt 68.

10

Defendants argue that new Ninth Circuit authority, Benavidez v. City of San Diego, 993

11

F.3d 1134 (9th Cir. 2021), requires the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs’ Monell claim and that

12

the Court may have erred in its analysis. The Court ordered Plaintiffs to respond, Dkt. 69,

13

and on May 11, 2021, Plaintiffs responded, Dkt. 70. On May 14, 2021, Defendants

14

replied. Dkt. 71.

15

II. DISCUSSION

16

Motions for reconsideration are governed by Local Rule 7(h), which provides as

17
18
19
20
21
22

follows:
Motions for reconsideration are disfavored. The court will ordinarily deny
such motions in the absence of a showing of manifest error in the prior
ruling or a showing of new facts or legal authority which could not have
been brought to its attention earlier with reasonable diligence.
Local Rules W.D. Wash. LCR 7(h). “[A] motion for reconsideration should not be
granted, absent highly unusual circumstances, unless the district court is presented with

ORDER - 2

Case 3:18-cv-05345-BHS Document 72 Filed 05/20/21 Page 3 of 5

1

newly discovered evidence, committed clear error, or if there is an intervening change in

2

the controlling law.” Kona Enters., Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 890 (9th Cir.

3

2000) (quoting 389 Orange Street Partners v. Arnold, 179 F.3d 656, 665 (9th Cir. 1999)).

4

Mere disagreement with a previous order is an insufficient basis for reconsideration, and

5

reconsideration may not be based on evidence and legal arguments that could have been

6

presented at the time of the challenged decision. Haw. Stevedores, Inc. v. HT & T Co.,

7

363 F. Supp. 2d 1253, 1269 (D. Haw. 2005).

8

Defendants argue that new Ninth Circuit authority merits the Court’s

9

reconsideration of the underlying order denying summary judgment as to Plaintiffs’

10

Monell claim. See Dkt. 68 at 3 (citing Benavidez, 993 F.3d at 1154). In Benavidez, the

11

Ninth Circuit considered whether the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint sufficiently

12

alleged a Monell claim against the County of San Diego for alleged unconstitutional

13

medical examinations. 993 F.3d at 1153. The Ninth Circuit concluded the complaint

14

failed to state a Monell claim against the County, in part, because a single instance of

15

unlawful conduct is insufficient to state a claim. Id. at 1154. But this new authority does

16

not change the Court’s calculus.

17

Defendants appear to repeat their arguments that a single instance of unlawful

18

conduct cannot be the basis of Plaintiffs’ Monell claim and rely on Benavidez as new

19

authority to support their argument. But Benavidez relies on standard Monell case law

20

and principles to reach its conclusion. See id. at 1153–54 (citing, inter alia, City of

21

Canton v. Harris, 489 U.S. 378 (1989); Bd. of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397

22

ORDER - 3

Case 3:18-cv-05345-BHS Document 72 Filed 05/20/21 Page 4 of 5

1

(1997)). The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendants fail to show how Benavidez

2

overrules or otherwise changes the law on which the Court based its decision.

3

The Court also agrees with Plaintiffs that their Monell claims are predicated on

4

more than a single incident. Plaintiffs bring § 1983 claims against the District under two

5

theories: first that the District “is liable for its execution of policies, customs and

6

practices, as well as for its actions in failing to adequately train, monitor, or supervise its

7

agents and employees to ensure the safety of its students” in regards to the due process

8

violations, Dkt. 1-2, ¶ 4.21, and second that the District “violated the Equal Protection

9

Clause in its practice of failing to enforce its policies on peer-to-peer sexual harassment

10

in its special education classroom at Bethel High School,” id., ¶ 4.31. The alleged

11

violations occurred every time the District failed to execute its peer-to-peer sexual

12

harassment policy or failed to report the sexual harassment.

13

The remainder of Defendants’ arguments are repetitive of what the Court has

14

already considered and rejected. Compare Dkt. 39 at 15–16 and Dkt. 56 at 22 with Dkt.

15

68 at 4–7. As the Court previously concluded, summary judgment is not warranted as to

16

Plaintiffs’ Monell claim on the due process violations, which includes the failure to train

17

claim, because a trier of fact must determine whether Superintendent Siegel is a final

18

policymaker. See Dkt. 65 at 10–12. Defendants have not met their burden to warrant

19

reconsideration. Their motion is, therefore, denied.

20
21
22

ORDER - 4

Case 3:18-cv-05345-BHS Document 72 Filed 05/20/21 Page 5 of 5

III. ORDER

1
2
3
4

Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for reconsideration,
Dkt. 68, is DENIED.
Dated this 20th day of May, 2021.

A

5
6

BENJAMIN H. SETTLE
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

ORDER - 5