Finally, defendants contend that plaintiffs' complaint should be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, to the extent that defendants are sued in their individual capacities. 2d 252 (1978). Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 261, 97 S. Ct. 555, 561, 50 L. Ed.
As discussed supra, the factual allegation that allows plaintiffs' complaint against the school district, the members of the school board, and Lawson, to get past a motion to dismiss is the allegation that the allegedly unconstitutional conduct of defendants Reynolds and Emerson was done pursuant to an official district policy. 791 (E.D.Va. Plaintiffs argue that the district, the defendants in their official capacities, and the defendants in their individual *1296 capacities, at least to the extent plaintiffs seek equitable and declaratory relief, are not entitled to the defense of good faith. 19(a). Memo of Law Supporting Defendants' Motion To Dismiss ¶ 2. The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendants' motion to dismiss plaintiffs' complaint be and is denied. Defendants argue that plaintiffs fail to allege any action taken by defendants in their individual capacity. 5 Wright & Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil § 1216 at 120 (1969). See, e.g., Gibson v. DuPree, 664 F.2d 175, 176 (8th Cir. Plaintiffs next argue that so-called "collateral consequences" of defendants' action continue to prejudice plaintiffs Kuhlmeier and Tippett and that injunctive relief is needed to remedy said consequences. 76 (D.C.Ill.1945), aff'd, 156 F.2d 44 (7th Cir. The absence of a district policy would not, of course, entitle defendants Reynolds or Emerson to summary judgment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(f). Accordingly, this defense should not be stricken. You will be … Plaintiffs allege that Spectrum is a "student newspaper published by [Hazelwood East] as an adjunct to the school's journalism curriculum." See also 10A Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 2739 (1983). In Indianapolis School Commissioners v. Jacobs, 420 U.S. 128, 95 S. Ct. 848, 43 L. Ed. Second, defendants' argument proceeds from the mistaken premise that if Spectrum is a part of the Hazelwood East curriculum, as opposed to a public forum for student expression, first amendment values are not implicated. Because plaintiffs have graduated, it is not possible that they will "be subjected to the same action again." The Background of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988) Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for enlargement of time in which to respond to defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment be and is granted. Therefore, there is no substantial risk that defendants will incur multiple obligations on the same cause of action. The May 13, 1983, issue of Spectrum was published without the articles in question. Id. This Court cannot say at this early stage that defendants' argument has no merit or that these defenses are relevant. This Court fails to understand how either of Rules 17(a) or 41(b) are implicated by this ground. Plaintiff Tippett-West is currently in nursing school and apparently has no plans to pursue a career in journalism. 2d 450 (1977). Life Asur. Therefore, this defense should not be stricken. See also Pasadena City Board of Education v. Spangler, 427 U.S. 424, 430, 96 S. Ct. 2697, 2702, 49 L. Ed. In May 1983, Robert E. Reynolds, the school principal, received the pages proofs for the May 13 issue. You can try any plan risk-free for 7 days. Hazelwood School District et al. Rule 41(b) does not apply to this case on the facts presently before this Court. Plaintiffs allege that the actions of defendants amounted to an illegal, content-based prior restraint. These defenses do not appear to be clearly insufficient or wholly irrelevant and therefore should not be stricken. See also Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464, 82 S. Ct. 486, 7 L. Ed. Accordingly, taking these assertions as true, defendants' motion must be denied because on its face issues of fact remain, i.e., whether defendants' alleged curriculum decisions comport with constitutional standards. Plaintiffs are or were members of a journalism class at Hazelwood East and on the staff of the Hazelwood East student newspaper, Spectrum. The Buckley Amendment prohibits school districts from disclosing certain confidential information. Moreover, the cases relied on by plaintiffs in support of applying the "collateral consequences" exception to the mootness doctrine here, are easily distinguished. Defendants' argument must be rejected for two reasons. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to amend by interlineation plaintiffs' memorandum in opposition to defendants' motions to dismiss and for summary judgment be and is granted. However, under Rule 56(e), a party *1424 opposing a motion for summary judgment may not rest upon the allegations of his pleadings but "must set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." § 507.115 (1978). 17(a); 41(b).
See Village of Schaumburg v. Citizens For Better Environment, 444 U.S. 620, 634, 100 S. Ct. 826, 834, 63 L. Ed. Cancel anytime. 1970); Lavin v. Chicago Board of Education, 73 F.R.D. Kuhlmeier (plaintiff) and two others were staff members of Spectrum, the school newspaper at Hazelwood East High School in the Hazelwood School District (defendant). With respect to damages, each plaintiff alleges mental and emotional distress, damage to reputation, and denial of the opportunity to submit the articles in question to various contests for high school newspapers. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to disallow defendants' memorandum opposing plaintiffs' motion to strike be and is denied. Fed.R.Civ.P. Before each issue of the newspaper was published, the journalism teacher would submit it to the school’s principal for final review. Complaint ¶ 7. Under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a movant is entitled to summary judgment if he can "show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that [he] is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law." 2d 731 (1969); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 89 S. Ct. 266, 21 L. Ed. Although this Court has ruled herein that plaintiffs allege sufficient standing to defeat a motion to dismiss, it does not follow that it may not appear at a later date or following a trial on the merits that plaintiffs lack sufficient standing to obtain certain types of relief. Accord, Thomas v. Board of Trustees, 515 F. Supp. The relief sought by plaintiffs includes actual and punitive damages, declaratory relief, injunctive relief, attorneys' fees and costs. Robert P. Baine, Jr.
Accordingly, defendants' motion is also denied with respect to plaintiffs' claim for declaratory relief. This case is now before this Court on defendants' motion for summary judgment. Missouri, E.D.
), aff'd, 564 F.2d 157, 3 Med.L.Rptr. See also 10A Wright, Miller and Kane, Federal Practice and Procedure: Civil 2d, § 2739 (1983). The "complaining part[ies]" in the case at bar are the three (3) named plaintiffs. The mootness doctrine is derived from the requirement in Article III of the United States Constitution that the federal judicial power be exercised only in "cases or controversies."
During the spring 1983 semester, the principal reviewed a draft of the newspaper containing two articles on the topics of teen pregnancy and divorce.
Plaintiffs next move to strike defendants' ninth affirmative defense, which states that plaintiffs have failed to join, as necessary parties, the authors of the subject articles, as required by Rule 19(a). In Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U.S. 147, 96 S. Ct. 347, 46 L. Ed. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion for an award of fees, costs and expenses be and is denied. "[A] motion to strike will not be granted if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be determined on a hearing on the merits." reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc. Plaintiffs allege that they suffered humiliation, damage to reputation, mental anguish, and denial of the opportunity to submit various aspects of the articles to student journalism contests, as a direct result of defendants' conduct. Therefore, the mere fact that Spectrum may be a part of, or related to, Hazelwood East's curriculum does not deprive this Court of subject matter jurisdiction to determine whether the conduct complained of comports with the requirements of the first amendment. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690 n. 55, 98 S. Ct. at 2035 n. 55. ¶ 9 of Count III of defendants' answer does not appear as an affirmative defense, but it can be inferred that defendants contend that the articles in question would have violated the Buckley Amendment. Fed.R.Civ.P. 2d 595 (1978). Defendants are incorrect in stating that constitutional values are not implicated in curricular decisions. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion to strike be and is denied, with the exception of defendants' twelfth affirmative defense which is stricken. Defendants spend much effort trying to establish that plaintiffs' claims for actual damages and emotional distress damages are not viable. 2d 458 (1962). Buller v. Buechler, 706 F.2d 844, 846 (8th Cir.1983); Vette Co. v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co., 612 F.2d 1076, 1077 (8th Cir.1980). However, that discretion is not without limits. Plaintiffs further argue that because defendants have submitted matters outside the pleadings, defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings must be treated as a motion for summary judgment and therefore plaintiffs consolidated their response to defendants' motions for judgment on the pleadings and for summary judgment. Accordingly, this Court holds that plaintiffs' claims for injunctive relief are moot. Defendants' own answer makes it clear that there is a genuine issue of fact as to whether the actions of defendants Reynolds and Emerson were undertaken pursuant to official district policy. Monell, 436 U.S. at 690-94, 98 S.Ct. Despite Lawson's affidavit, however, it is the opinion of this Court that defendants' final ground in support of their motion for summary judgment must be rejected. There is no substantial risk of defendants incurring multiple or inconsistent obligations with respect to plaintiffs' claims. 1981) (student's claim for injunctive relief against school's attendance policy mooted by student's graduation); Williams v. Spencer, 622 F.2d 1200, 1204 (4th Cir.1980) (claims for injunctive relief with respect to school's seizure and restraint of student newspaper mooted by students' graduation); Zeller v. Donegal School District Board of Education, 517 F.2d 600, 601 n. 1 (3d Cir. See also Secretary of State of Maryland v. Joseph H. Munson Company, Inc., ___ U.S. ___, ___, 104 S. Ct. 2839, 2847, 81 L. Ed. For example, ¶ 7 of Count III of defendants' answer states that the articles were deleted pursuant to district regulations and the district curriculum guide. 2d 491 (1969); Carson v. Pierce, 719 F.2d 931, 933 (8th Cir.1983). See Contois v. State Mut.
Defendants argue that, because plaintiffs received a grade for their "Journalism II" class and because they graduated from Hazelwood East High School subsequent to filing their complaint in this action, plaintiffs' claims for relief are now moot.
III. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. 831, Forest Lake, 670 F.2d 771 (8th Cir.1982). Fed.R.Civ.P. Prior to issuance, the journalism teacher would gather the articles and submit them to the principal for a final review.