In reopening summary judgment evidence in dispute over anti-abortion school club, judge feels ‘misled’

IL file photo

In reopening the window for the submission of evidence on whether a student who sued her school over a dispute about an anti-abortion club provided proper notice, a federal judge said she felt “misled” by the parties’ lack of candor.

In a Thursday order, Senior Judge Sarah Evans Barker of the Indiana Southern District Court gave the parties 10 days to file additional evidence they want the court to consider before ruling on summary judgment on the issue of whether the plaintiff, known in court documents as E.D., complied with the notice requirement of the Indiana Tort Claims Act before she sued the Noblesville School District and school officials.

E.D. filed the lawsuit in December 2021 after Noblesville High School revoked its approval of an anti-abortion student group, Noblesville Students for Life. School officials said the revocation was based on E.D.’s failure to comply with school procedures, but E.D. alleged various violations of state and federal law.

At issue in Barker’s Thursday order was the entry of summary judgment in favor of the school defendants on official-capacity claims of bullying, libel, slander and defamation, intimidation and bullying, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and privacy by publication of private facts. Barker had also previously granted a motion to dismiss individual-capacity claims of libel, slander and defamation, and intimidation and bullying.

The plaintiffs moved for reconsideration, which Barker denied in part as to the individual-capacity state-court claims.

But she partially granted the motion as to the official-capacity claims, for which she had granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the ITCA’s notice requirement.

The defendants had raised the notice issue in a motion to dismiss, and the plaintiffs responded by producing a demand letter dated Nov. 12, 2021, as well as a Jan. 5, 2022, letter from the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission, which was meant to “serve as formal notice and acknowledgement of our receipt of the Notice of Tort Claim you recently filed against Noblesville School District et al.”

“Because Plaintiffs had submitted exhibits outside the pleadings on the issue of ITCA notice in response to Defendant’s motion to dismiss and had successfully opposed Defendants’ motion to strike those exhibits, we felt justified in converting sua sponte Defendant’s motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment as to the issue of ITCA notice compliance,” Barker wrote Thursday. “We found that, although notice is usually required before converting a motion to dismiss to one for summary judgment, such notice was not required under the circumstances before us because each party had had ‘a reasonable opportunity to present all the material that is pertinent to the motion’ and to respond to the other’s evidence and argument.”

Barker wrote that she did not agree with the plaintiffs’ argument that she had “manifestly erred” in converting the motion to dismiss to a motion for summary judgment without notice.

However, “In support of their motion for reconsideration, Plaintiffs have (finally) proffered a copy of a formal Notice of Tort Claim dated December 30, 2021 and have informed the Court that they included the Notice of Tort Claim as a ‘cover letter,’ which, along with their demand letter dated November 12, 2021, they sent to Defendants and the Indiana Political Subdivision Risk Management Commission ‘on or around’ December 30, 2021.’ In response to the Court’s request for clarification regarding whether Defendants acknowledge receiving the Notice of Tort Claim prior to the filing of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, the parties have submitted a joint notice stating that the Notice of Tort Claim was sent via U.S. mail to Noblesville School District, Noblesville High School,  Superintendent (Beth) Niedermeyer and Principal (Craig) McCaffrey on December 30, 2021 and received on January 10, 2022, one day before Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint was filed in court.”

That document, Barker wrote, “now raises a disputed issue regarding whether Plaintiffs complied with the ITCA notice requirement prior to filing their Amended Complaint. We thus conclude upon reconsideration that our failure to provide notice to the parties of our intent to treat Defendants’ 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss as a motion for summary judgment with regard to the ITCA notice issue was error.”

After the deadline has passed for the submission of additional evidence on that issue, Barker gave the defendants 21 days to file a supplemental brief in support of their motion for summary judgment, followed by 14 days for the plaintiffs to respond.

She also expressed frustration with the parties in a lengthy footnote.

“We have no idea why, after Defendants raised the issue of ITCA notice in their motion to dismiss, and Plaintiffs voluntarily submitted other documents outside the pleadings to prove compliance, neither side informed the Court that Plaintiffs had in fact submitted a formal Notice of Tort Claim to Defendants prior to their filing of the Amended Complaint nor did they provide a copy of that document for the Court’s consideration in addressing the notice issue,” Barker wrote.

“The Court relies on the parties to submit the evidence and develop the arguments that they deem relevant to their claims and/or defenses,” she continued. “Litigants are not entitled simply to attach exhibits to their filings without explaining their legal significance or to present only some of the documents relevant to an issue and expect the Court to divine this purpose or relevance or an appropriate resolution.

“It is not hyperbole to say that we feel misled by the parties’ lack of adversarial rigor and candor in getting this issue properly before the Court for a decision.”

The case is E.D., et al. v. Noblesville School District, et al., 1:21-cv-03075.