ANNE Y. SHIELDS, Magistrate Judge.
This is an action in which Plaintiff Alissa Calandrino ("Calandrino" or "Plaintiff"), on behalf of her minor child, J.C., seeks compensatory damages from defendants Farmingdale Union Free School District ("the District"), Board of Education of the Farmingdale Union Free School District ("the Board"), Michael Goldberg ("Goldberg"), Ralph Morales ("Morales"), Suzanne D'Amico ("D'Amico"), Mario Espinosa ("Espinosa"), Anthony Giordano ("Giordano"), Kathy Lively ("Lively"), Arlene Soete ("Soete"), Luis Pena ("Pena"), Donald Cassidy ("Cassidy"), Yuvelin Baltar ("Baltar"), and Marisa Moscato ("Moscato") (collectively "Defendants") due to alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act ("Section 504"), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims under New York State Human Rights Law § 296 ("NYSHRL"), and for negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, the Dignity for All Student Act ("DASA"), and negligent supervision/hiring.
Presently before this Court, upon referral by the Honorable Sandra J. Feuerstein for Report and Recommendation, is Defendants' motion pursuant to Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure to dismiss Plaintiff's Amended Complaint.
Plaintiff Calandrino is the mother of J.C., an eighth-grade student at Weldon E. Howitt Middle School who has been enrolled since September 2016. Amended Complaint ("Am. Compl.) ¶¶ 23-24. J.C. has Type I Diabetes.
At the beginning of the 2018-2019 school year, Plaintiff and her husband requested that J.C.'s 504 Plan be updated to permit him the use of his cell phone at any and all times throughout the school day, and during school related activities, in order for him to text message his parents in order to safely manage his Type 1 Diabetes. Am. Compl. ¶ 30. On September 6, 2018, Plaintiff received a new 504 Plan for J.C. which states that "[J.C. may request permission of school staff to check his cell phone for parent messages pertaining to his diabetes. [J.C.] must be given permission to visit any of the administrative offices to use his cell phone or an office phone to call his parents regarding his diabetic condition under the supervision of school staff."
On September 14, 2018, Plaintiff and her husband met with the District's Committee on Special Education ("CSE") to request that the committee modify the language contained in J.C.'s 504 Plan pertaining to the use of his cell phone to allow him the use of his cell phone at any and all times throughout the school day for the purposes of text messaging his parents for guidance in the treatment of his Type 1 Diabetes, as well as to monitor his blood glucose levels via the mobile application. Am. Compl. ¶ 33. The request was not granted.
On March 1, 2019, Defendants agreed to modify J.C.'s 504 Plan. Am. Compl. ¶ 40. The 504 Plan was modified to allow J.C. to utilize his cell phone at any time throughout the school day for the purposes of managing his Type 1 Diabetes, including the mobile application to monitor his blood sugars, as well as to contact his parents for diabetes management decisions without having to visit school administrative offices.
Plaintiff commenced this lawsuit on January 22, 2019. On March 3, 2019, an initial conference was held before the District Court. DE [23]. On March 19, 2019, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint. DE [24].
On May 13, 2019, Defendants filed their motion to dismiss. DE [28]. Upon briefing of the motion, it was referred to this Court for report and recommendation.
Plaintiff asserts three federal claims — one each under the ADA, Section 504 and Section 1983. Plaintiff alleges that as a result of Defendants' failure to modify J.C.'s 504 Plan to allow him to freely use his cell phone to monitor his blood glucose levels and to contact his parents for guidance regarding treatment of his Type 1 Diabetes, that Defendants created a dangerous environment for J.C. and denied him reasonable accommodations that would allow him to be given an equal educational opportunity. Plaintiff also alleges that the Defendants engaged in common law negligence violations.
Defendants move to dismiss each of Plaintiff's claims. It is argued that Plaintiff's failure to exhaust administrative remedies deprives the Court of subject matter jurisdiction. Defendants assert that Plaintiff's federal claims are subject to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act's ("IDEA") exhaustion requirements and do not fall within the scope of the futility exception.
Defendants further aver that Plaintiff fails to allege any facts to support plausible discrimination or equal rights claims and thus, the claims must fail under Federal Rule 12(b)(6). Having summarized the relevant facts and arguments, the Court turns to the merits of the motions.
A Rule 12(b)(1) motion is properly granted where a plaintiff fails to plausibly establish subject matter jurisdiction. A case is properly dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) when the court lacks the statutory or constitutional power to adjudicate it.
To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain "sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to `state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'"
In deciding a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court may consider only the facts alleged in the complaint (which are accepted as true), documents attached to the complaint as exhibits or incorporated by reference therein, matters as to which judicial notice may be taken, and documents upon which the complaint "relies heavily" and which are, thus, rendered "integral" to the complaint.
"It is well settled that the IDEA requires an aggrieved party to exhaust all administrative remedies before bringing a civil action in federal or state court."
Relief is "available" under the IDEA if the IDEA affords a remedy—in any form— "for the events, condition, or consequences of which the [plaintiff] complains."
To exhaust administrative remedies in New York, parents must first present their complaints to a hearing officer, who conducts a hearing and issues a written decision. An adverse decision from the hearing officer can then be appealed to the NYSED.
"Failure to exhaust [ ] administrative remedies deprives the court of subject matter jurisdiction."
Plaintiff concedes that she did not exhaust the administrative remedies. Thus, the question is whether the exhaustion requirement applies at all.
Plaintiff maintains that she was not required to exhaust her administrative remedies with respect to her claims under the ADA, Section 504 and Section 1983 because those claims do not seek relief available under the IDEA. Plaintiff concedes that her claims deal with Free Appropriate Public Education ("FAPE") related issues but that her claims are "solely for monetary damages, costs and attorneys fees to be recovered for past wrongs, past wrongs that an IDEA officer would be unable to adequately remedy, if at all." Pl.'s Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss ("Pl.'s Opp.") at 14
As explained above, "[a] court looks to the `theory behind the grievance' to determine whether the IDEA exhaustion requirement is triggered" for non-IDEA claims.
But "[t]he IDEA provides relief for this type of grievance," as the IDEA allows parents to "present complaints as `to any matter relating to... the provision of a free appropriate public education.'"
Further, Plaintiff's claims do not fall within the futility exception to the IDEA's exhaustion requirement, as Plaintiff does not challenge "a district-wide policy of discrimination."
Because Plaintiff failed to exhaust her administrative remedies, the Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over those claims. Therefore, this Court respectfully recommends that Plaintiff's ADA, Section 504 and Section 1983 claims be dismissed with prejudice.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), "the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution." However, courts "may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a claim" if "the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction."
Here, given the absence of a federal-law claim, the interests of judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity weigh in favor of not exercising supplemental jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Court further recommends that the Court refrain from exercising supplemental jurisdiction over any state-law claims contained in Plaintiffs Amended Complaint
For the foregoing reasons, this Court respectfully recommends that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss, appearing as Docket Entry No. 28 herein, be granted in its entirety.
A copy of this Report and Recommendation is being provided to all counsel via ECF. Any written objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of the Court within fourteen (14) days of filing of this report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), 72(b). Any requests for an extension of time for filing objections must be directed to the District Judge assigned to this action prior to the expiration of the fourteen (14) day period for filing objections. Failure to file objections within fourteen (14) days will preclude further review of this report and recommendation either by the District Court or Court of Appeals.