E.H. v. Issaquah School District

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: August 27, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-01743
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE

9 10 E.H., CASE NO. C23-1743JLR 11 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 12 ISSAQUAH SCHOOL DISTRICT, 13 et al., 14 Defendants. 15 I. INTRODUCTION 16 Before the court is Defendant Washington Office of Superintendent of Public 17 Instruction’s (“OSPI”) motion to be dropped from this litigation pursuant to Federal Rule 18 of Civil Procedure 21. (Mot. (Dkt. # 39); Reply (Dkt. # 42).)1 Plaintiff E.H., litigating 19 20 1 OSPI titles its motion as one for “judgment on the pleadings” but appears to rely on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 as the basis for its motion. (Mot. at 1, 6.) “A judgment on 21 the pleadings is a decision on the merits,” Gen. Conf. Corp. of Seventh-Day Adventists v. Seventh-Day Adventist Congregational Church, 887 F.2d 228, 230 (9th Cir. 1989), but the 22 “[m]isjoinder of parties is not a ground for dismissing an action,” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. Because 1 on behalf of her minor child R.M., opposes the motion to the extent that granting it would 2 interfere with her rights in this case. (Resp. (Dkt. # 40).) Defendant Issaquah School

3 District (the “School District”) “takes no position on OSPI’[s] motion and arguments and 4 defers to the Court regarding the same.” (7/16/24 Submission (Dkt. # 41).) The court 5 has considered the parties’ submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and the 6 applicable law. Being fully advised,2 the court GRANTS OSPI’s motion. 7 II. BACKGROUND 8 This case arises out of an administrative due process hearing E.H. initiated over

9 the School District’s provision of special education services to R.M. (See generally Am. 10 Compl. (Dkt. # 26).) On August 17, 2023, Administrative Law Judge Courtney Beebe 11 issued a final order in the School District’s favor. (See generally Final Order (Dkt. 12 # 31-1).) OSPI was not a party to those proceedings. (See generally id.) On November 13 14, 2023, E.H. filed a complaint in this court against the School District to appeal

14 Administrative Law Judge Beebe’s final order. (Compl. (Dkt. # 1).) On April 2, 2024, 15 E.H. filed an amended complaint naming the School District and OSPI as codefendants. 16 (Am. Compl. at 1.) E.H. added OSPI to this matter because “the Washington State 17 Uniform Declaratory Judgments Act requires the attorney general to be served with a 18 copy of the proceedings and is entitled to be heard if a party to the proceeding alleges that

20 OSPI simply seeks to be dropped from this litigation, rather than a merits determination in its favor, the court construes OSPI’s motion as one under Rule 21. 21 2 Neither side requests oral argument (see Mot. at 1; Resp. at 1), and the court concludes that oral argument would not aid in its disposition of OSPI’s motion, see Local Rules W.D. 22 Wash. LCR 7(b)(4). 1 a law within the state is unconstitutional.” (Id. ¶ 3.10.) See generally RCW 7.24.110. 2 On July 1, 2024, OSPI filed the present motion, acknowledging that it has had the

3 opportunity to be heard in this matter and believes the case should proceed with the 4 School District as the sole defendant. (See generally Mot.) OSPI’s motion is now ripe 5 for review. 6 III. ANALYSIS 7 The court provides the relevant legal standard before turning to OSPI’s motion. 8 A. Rule 21 Legal Standard

9 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides that “[o]n motion or on its own, the 10 court may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. The 11 decision to add or drop a party is left to the district court’s sound discretion. See Rush v. 12 Sport Chalet, Inc., 779 F.3d 973, 974 (9th Cir. 2015). That discretion, however, is 13 “bounded by: (1) Rule 19, such that indispensable parties may not be dropped; and

14 (2) Rule 21’s own requirement that no party be prejudiced.” Avenatti v. Fox News 15 Network LLC, 41 F.4th 125, 135 (3d Cir. 2022); see also La. Mun. Police Emps.’ Ret. 16 Sys. v. Wynn, 829 F.3d 1048, 1057 (9th Cir. 2016) (noting that the court may dismiss a 17 party from a lawsuit “provided that she is not an indispensable party under Rule 19”). A 18 person is a necessary party under Rule 19(a) if:

19 (A) in that person’s absence, the court cannot accord complete relief among existing parties; or 20 (B) that person claims an interest relating to the subject of the action and is so situated that disposing of the action in the person’s absence may: 21 (i) as a practical matter impair or impede the person’s ability to protect the interest; or 22 1 (ii) leave an existing party subject to a substantial risk of incurring double, multiple, or otherwise inconsistent obligations because of the 2 interest. 3 Fed. R. Civ. P. 19(a)(1). Thus, a person may be dropped pursuant to Rule 21 if (1) the 4 person “was a dispensable party under Rule 19,” and (2) “dropping him would not be 5 prejudicial.” Avenatti, 41 F.4th at 131. 6 B. OSPI’s Motion 7 OSPI argues that it is not a necessary party under Rule 19 because (1) “Plaintiff 8 may obtain complete relief as to the underlying dispute” and (2) “any OSPI interest in

9 this case would be adequately represented by the existing parties and OSPI’s absence will 10 not expose the parties to [the] risk of multiple or incongruent obligations.” (Mot. at 10.) 11 E.H. acknowledges that OSPI need not “be heard if they do not wish to be heard” but 12 notes that it “is unclear from OSPI’s briefing whether they understand that [E.H.’s] 13 Complaint places WAC 392-172A-031015 in jeopardy of being ruled unconstitutional.”

14 (Resp. at 3, 5.) OSPI clarifies in its reply brief that, should the court reach E.H.’s 15 constitutional argument and rule in her favor, “OSPI would certainly reassess its rule” but 16 “that possible future outcome does not require OSPI’s involvement in the present 17 matter.” (Reply at 3.) 18 The court has little difficulty concluding that OSPI is a dispensable party under

19 Rule 19 and that E.H. would not be prejudiced by OSPI’s absence. The court can grant 20 E.H. complete relief in OSPI’s absence. As OSPI correctly notes, “if Plaintiff prevails 21 this Court can order the [School] District to reimburse Plaintiff for the costs of R.M.’s 22 private placement and other private services, as well as pay Plaintiff’s attorney fees, 1 without involving OSPI as a party.” (Reply at 3.) E.H. can also bring her constitutional 2 challenge to WAC 392-172A-031015 without further involvement from OSPI in this

3 lawsuit, as noted above. Moreover, the School District will not incur any risk of multiple 4 or otherwise inconsistent obligations in OSPI’s absence and is capable of adequately 5 representing any interest OSPI may have in the outcome of this litigation. 6 In sum, because OSPI was not a party to the underlying administrative 7 proceedings and is a dispensable party in this case, the court finds that just terms exist to 8 drop OSPI from this litigation. OSPI had the opportunity to be heard and declined to take

9 it. The court will not require the Attorney General to litigate this matter further. 10 IV. CONCLUSION 11 For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS OSPI’s motion (Dkt. # 39) and 12 dismisses E.H.’s claims against OSPI without prejudice. 13 Dated this 27th day of August, 2024. A 14 JAMES L. ROBART 15 United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22