People of the State of New York v. Niagara-Wheatfield Central School District

OCR transcription for search; preserved printed pages are authoritative

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page 1of/7

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK, BY LETITIA JAMES, NEW
YORK STATE ATTORNEY GENERAL,
Plaintiff, 21-CV-759 (JLS) (LGF)

Vv.

NIAGARA-WHEATFIELD CENTRAL
SCHOOL DISTRICT,

Defendant.

DECISION AND ORDER

Plaintiff New York State Attorney General Letitia James brought this action
on behalf of the People of the State of New York, under the parens patriae doctrine,
alleging Title IX and negligent supervision claims against Defendant Niagara-
Wheatfield Central School District based on alleged instances of discrimination
against female students at Defendant’s schools that Defendant failed to address.
Dkt. 1. With consent, Plaintiff filed an amended complaint—now the operative
pleading. Dkt. 10; Dkt. 11. Defendant answered the amended complaint. Dkt. 14.
The Court then referred this case to United States Magistrate Judge Leslie G.
Foschio for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 15.

Defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings. Dkt. 34. Plaintiff opposed,

and Defendant replied. Dkt. 39; Dkt. 40.

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 7

Judge Foschio issued a comprehensive Report and Recommendation (R&R)

on May 11, 2022, presenting options and recommending:

First, that this Court grant Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs Title IX
claim for failure to establish parens patriae standing, and decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law negligent
supervision claim (Dkt. 41, at 12-21, 30); or

Alternatively, if this Court disagrees with the parens patriae
recommendation, that it grant Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiff's
Title IX claim for lack of standing to seek injunctive and relief based on
the allegations in the amended complaint, and that it decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law negligent
supervision claim (id. at 21-22, 30); or

If this Court disagrees with both recommendations regarding standing,
that it deny Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs Title IX claim because
the amended complaint plausibly states such a claim, and that it grant
Defendant’s motion on Plaintiff's negligent supervision claim for lack
of standing to seek injunctive relief (id. at 23-30); or

If this Court disagrees with all recommendations regarding lack of
standing on Plaintiffs Title IX and negligent supervision claims, that
it deny Defendant’s motion as to both claims because the amended

complaint plausibly alleges each claim (id. at 23-35).

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page 3of7

I. The R&R and the Parties’ Objections

Plaintiff objected to the R&R, arguing that the magistrate judge incorrectly
concluded Plaintiff failed to establish parens patriae standing and incorrectly
concluded that she lacks standing to seek injunctive relief. See Dkt. 42. She also
requests leave to amend, if this Court were to accept the recommendation to grant
Defendant’s motion. See id. at 21-22. Defendant responded in opposition. Dkt. 48.
Plaintiff replied in further support of her objections. Dkt. 51.

Defendant also objected to the R&R. Dkt. 44. First, Defendant argues that,
if this Court were to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law
negligent supervision claim, it should dismiss that claim, too, for lack of parens
patriae standing. See id. Defendant also objects to the R&R’s conclusion that the
amended complaint pleads plausible Title IX and negligent supervision claims. See
id. Plaintiff responded, and Defendant replied. Dkt. 49; Dkt. 50.

A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations
of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3). A district
court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge’s
recommendation to which a party objects. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72
requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to
which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).

This Court carefully reviewed the R&R and the relevant record. Based on its

de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Foschio’s recommendation to

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page 4of7

grant Defendant’s motion as to Plaintiffs Title IX claim because Plaintiff did not
establish parens patriae standing to pursue that claim. Plaintiff has not identified
authority to support parens patriae standing in a context like this one—where a
plaintiff relies on distinct examples of alleged discrimination and a policy or
practice of failing to respond to such instances of discrimination to establish the
requisite injury to a substantial segment of the population. Nor did Judge Foschio’s
thorough survey of the relevant case law reveal such authority.

The number of exemplars in the amended complaint alone—here, four
detailed examples plus a reference to thirty additional instances—is not necessarily
fatal to Plaintiff establishing parens patriae standing. Rather, Plaintiff did not
establish parens patriae standing because she relies on examples of factually
distinct instances of discrimination and a general policy or practice of Defendant’s
alleged failure to respond adequately to such discrimination, unlike the cases in
which such standing exists. Cf. New York by Abrams v. 11 Cornwell Co., 695 F.2d
34, 37-40 (2d Cir. 1982) (conspiring to sell property as single-family residence to
prevent property from becoming community residence for mentally-challenged
individuals), vacated on other grounds, 718 F.2d 22 (2d Cir. 1983); New York by
Schneiderman v. Utica City Sch. Dist., 177 F. Supp. 3d 739, 743—44, 748 (N.D.N.Y.
2016) (systematic diversion of immigrant students aged 17 to 20 to alternative
education program instead of district’s high school); New York v. Peter & John’s
Pump House, Inc., 914 F. Supp. 809, 811-12 (N.D.N.Y. 1996) (policy and practice of

requiring African American patrons to present proof of age and to meet a dress

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page5of7

code, resulting in denying those patrons admission to club); New York by Vacco v.
Mid Hudson Med. Grp., P.C., 877 F. Supp. 148, 145, 147 (S.D.N.Y. 1995) (failure to
provide interpretive services to hearing-impaired patients, resulting in reliance on
note-writing and lip-reading to communicate with doctors); Support Ministries for
Persons With AIDS, Inc. v. Vill. of Waterford, 799 F. Supp. 272, 274-75, 277-78
(N.D.N.Y. 1992) (refusal to grant variance to entity seeking to establish group home
for persons with AIDS experiencing homelessness).

In other words, Plaintiff lacks standing because the exemplars do not
establish that Defendant’s policy or practice affects a substantial segment of the
population. See Dkt. 41, at 16 (‘Plaintiff fails to establish that the alleged sexual
harassment and discrimination of the four student victims within the [district]
sufficiently establishes injury to a substantial segment of New York’s population.”).

The Court also accepts Judge Foschio’s recommendation that it decline to
exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-law negligent supervision
claim. Because the Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction over the Title IX claim in
the amended complaint, it declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs remaining state-law claim. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(8) (“[A] district court]]
may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over aclaim...if... [it] has
dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction . . . .”).

The Court does not address Judge Foschio’s alternative recommendations in
light of the conclusions above regarding parens patriae standing and supplemental

jurisdiction.

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52- Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 7

II. Leave to Amend

Plaintiff seeks leave to amend, suggesting that she would add allegations
about current students who have contacted her about Defendant’s conduct
regarding instances of discrimination. See Dkt. 42, at 7 n.2, 21-22; Dkt. 51, at 10
n.2. Defendant opposes Plaintiffs request. See Dkt. 48, at 15-16.

The Court denies leave to amend. Plaintiff already amended the complaint
once, with Defendant’s consent. See Dkt. 10. Moreover, other than a generic
reference to additional instances of discrimination, Plaintiff does not identify how
she would amend, or how any additional exemplars would address the deficiency
discussed above. See TechnoMarine SA v. Giftports, Inc., 758 F.3d 4938, 505 (2d Cir.
2014) (“A plaintiff need not be given leave to amend if it fails to specify either to the
district court or to the court of appeals how amendment would cure the pleading
deficiencies in its complaint.”); see also Bldg. Trades Pension Fund of W.
Pennsylvania v. Insperity, Inc., No. 20 CIV. 5635 (NRB), 2022 WL 784017, at *16
n.10 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 15, 2022) (“Plaintiff requests, in a single sentence at the end of
its brief, that it be given the opportunity to replead if the motion to dismiss is
granted. However, plaintiff does not explain how it would amend its complaint, and
as such, its request is insufficient.”).

In light of the Court’s conclusions above and in the R&R regarding parens
patriae standing, Plaintiffs general reference to proposed amendment is insufficient
and does not justify leave to amend. See Noto v. 22nd Century Grp., 35 F.4th 95,

107-08 (2d Cir. 2022) (denial of leave to amend appropriate where plaintiffs stated

Case 1:21-cv-00759-JLS-LGF Document52_ Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 7

only that they “could cure any deficiencies with additional testimony about
defendants’ editing, review, and approval of the promotional articles, but [did] not
allege what specific facts they would include to demonstrate the level of control
needed for Rule 10b-5(b) liability”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above and in the R&R, the Court:
e Accepts and adopts, in part, the R&R (Dkt. 41);

e Grants Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 34)

>

without prejudice;
e Declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs state-

law negligent supervision claim; and

Denies Plaintiff leave to file a second amended complaint.

The Clerk of Court shall close this case.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 26, 2022

Buffalo, New York

N 7 cn JR.
NITED STATES DIST aCT JU