Moore v. Kansas City Public Sch., No. 15-2617 (8th Cir. 2016)
Annotate this CasePlaintiff, on behalf of D.S., a minor student with intellectual disabilities, filed suit against the school district and others, in state court, seeking damages for premises liability and negligent supervision because D.S. was raped by another student in an unsupervised area of Southwest during the school day, and because D.S. was repeatedly bullied and sexually harassed by her classmates and peers. Defendants removed to federal court, claiming that plaintiff's causes of action arose under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq., and then moved to dismiss under FRCP 12(b)(1) and (6). The district court denied plaintiff's motion to remand and dismissed the suit for failure to exhaust IDEA administrative remedies. The court concluded that plaintiff’s theories of liability arise out of Missouri statutory and common law, and the disposition of claims for premises liability and negligent supervision is not dependent on resolution of a substantial question of federal law. Even if the relief plaintiff requested were available under both state law and the IDEA, the well-pled complaint rule protects plaintiff's right to choose a state law cause of action. The court agreed with the Ninth Circuit that non-IDEA claims that do not seek relief available under the IDEA are not subject to the exhaustion requirement, even if they allege injuries that could conceivably have been redressed by the IDEA. Finally, the court denied plaintiff's request for attorney fees because defendants had a reasonable basis for their removal request. The court reversed and remanded to state court.
Court Description: Riley, Author, with Loken and Benton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The district court erred in denying plaintiff's motion to remand this matter to state court as her theories of defendants' liability arise out of Missouri statutory and common law, and the disposition of her claims for premise liability and negligent supervision are not dependent on a resolution of a claim based onfederal law; even if the relief plaintiff requested were available under both state law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the well-pled complaint rule protects plaintiff's right to choose a state law claim of action; non-IDEA claims that do not seek relief under the IDEA are not subject to the Act's exhaustion requirement, even if they allege injuries that could conceivably have been addressed by the IDEA; plaintiff's request for attorney's fees is denied as defendants had a reasonable basis for their request for removal; remanded with directions to remand the case to the Missouri circuit court.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.