Kourtney Rodgers v. State of LA Board of Nursing
665 F. App'x 326
5th Cir.2016Background
- Louisiana Board of Nursing sets accreditation criteria for nursing programs, including an 80% first-time NCLEX-RN pass rate; failure leads to conditional approval and eventual termination after repeated failures.
- Grambling State University School of Nursing was on conditional approval for three years and again fell below the 80% threshold for 2014–Q1 2015; the Board ordered it to stop admitting students and begin involuntary termination.
- Student Kourtney Rodgers sued the Board alleging Sherman Act and Clayton Act antitrust violations, claiming the Board unlawfully relied solely on the 80% pass-rate to terminate the program.
- The district court set a 10-page, timely opposition limit; Rodgers filed a 20-page opposition four days late and the court struck it for noncompliance with deadlines and local rules.
- The district court independently reviewed the Board’s Rule 12(b)(1)/(6) motion and dismissed the complaint, holding the Board entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity under the Fifth Circuit’s Earles test; Rodgers appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| District court’s striking of Rodgers’ late/overlength brief | Striking was an abuse of discretion; no prejudice to Board | Court rules and briefing notice required compliance; prejudice need not be shown | No abuse of discretion; strike upheld |
| Whether sovereign immunity must be analyzed using the N.C. Dental Board (Midcal) two‑prong Parker test | N.C. Dental Board’s two‑prong test should govern immunity analysis | Sovereign immunity and Parker immunity are distinct; Earles test controls sovereign immunity analysis | Sovereign and Parker immunity are distinct; district court properly used Earles for sovereign immunity |
| Whether Parker immunity analysis supplants sovereign immunity post‑N.C. Dental Board | Sovereign immunity analysis should incorporate N.C. Dental Board second prong | N.C. Dental Board addressed Parker immunity, not sovereign immunity; no authority to merge tests | Court rejected merger; tests are not coterminous |
| Overall dismissal for lack of subject‑matter jurisdiction | Rodgers argued the Board was not immune and alleged antitrust claim merited consideration | Board claimed Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity as an arm of the state | Complaint dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; judgment affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32 (1991) (trial courts possess inherent power to manage proceedings)
- Earles v. State Bd. of Certified Pub. Accountants, 139 F.3d 1033 (5th Cir. 1998) (test for Eleventh Amendment immunity of state regulatory boards)
- N.C. State Bd. of Dental Exam’rs v. FTC, 135 S. Ct. 1101 (2015) (Parker immunity limits for boards controlled by market participants)
- Parker v. Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943) (foundational source of Parker immunity)
- Midcal Aluminum, Inc. v. State of California, 445 U.S. 97 (1980) (two‑prong test for Parker immunity)
- Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U.S. 773 (1975) (discussion of state entities and antitrust immunity)
- Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996) (limitations on Congress’s ability to abrogate state sovereign immunity)
- Cambridge Toxicology Group, Inc. v. Exnicios, 495 F.3d 169 (5th Cir. 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for motions to strike)
- Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158 (5th Cir. 2001) (de novo review for Rule 12(b)(1) motions)