648 F. App'x 412
5th Cir.2016Background
- In Feb 2015 Joni Lozano, as next friend of minor A.H., sued Donna Independent School District alleging among other claims a Title IX action based on a teacher’s alleged sexual assault of A.H.
- Donna ISD moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim; Lozano moved for leave to file an amended complaint and attached a proposed amended pleading.
- The district court granted leave but expressly ordered Lozano to file the amended complaint within seven days; Lozano did not file it.
- On July 13, 2015 the court dismissed all claims with prejudice based on the original complaint; Lozano moved under Rules 59 and 60 seeking relief and argued her original complaint sufficiently pleaded Title IX or that counsel’s failure to file was excusable neglect.
- The district court denied relief, concluding Lozano failed to plead school actual knowledge of a substantial risk of sexual harassment and that counsel’s inadvertent mistake did not warrant Rule 60(b) relief; Lozano appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the district court should have treated the proposed amended complaint as filed when it granted leave | Lozano: the proposed amended complaint attached to the motion should be treated as filed; Foman prevents dismissal on technicalities | Donna ISD: court permissibly required Lozano to file the amended complaint within seven days; conditions on leave are allowed | Court: No abuse of discretion; failure to file meant the court properly considered only the original complaint |
| Whether the original complaint pleaded a viable Title IX claim (actual knowledge of sexual harassment) | Lozano: original complaint adequately alleged Donna ISD knew or should have known of teacher’s history and thus faced a substantial threat | Donna ISD: complaint contained only conclusory allegations and lacked facts showing actual notice of a substantial threat | Court: Complaint insufficient under Rule 12(b)(6); dismissal affirmed |
| Whether the district court misapplied the Title IX standard | Lozano: court misstated the standard and should have reached the merits | Donna ISD: the proper Gebser/Rosa H. actual-knowledge substantial-risk standard governs | Court: Applied controlling Fifth Circuit and Supreme Court precedent; no error |
| Whether counsel’s failure to file the amended complaint was excusable neglect warranting Rule 60(b) relief | Lozano: counsel’s failure to file was excusable neglect meriting relief | Donna ISD: counsel’s inadvertent mistake or carelessness is not a sufficient basis for Rule 60(b) relief | Court: Denial of Rule 60(b) relief was proper; counsel’s mistake does not justify reopening judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 (1962) (leave to amend should be freely given but technical violations do not always justify forfeiture of merits)
- Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S. 274 (1998) (Title IX school liability requires actual notice and deliberate indifference)
- Rosa H. v. San Elizario Indep. Sch. Dist., 106 F.3d 648 (5th Cir. 1997) (Title IX requires showing school knew students faced a substantial threat of sexual harassment)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (conclusory allegations insufficient to survive Rule 12(b)(6))
- Moore v. Manns, 732 F.3d 454 (5th Cir. 2013) (standard of review for denial/grant of leave to amend)
- King-White v. Humble Indep. Sch. Dist., 803 F.3d 754 (5th Cir. 2015) (standards for reviewing Rule 12(b)(6) dismissals in Title IX context)
- Edward H. Bohlin Co. v. Banning Co., 6 F.3d 350 (5th Cir. 1993) (counsel’s carelessness or inadvertent mistake is not a basis for Rule 60(b) relief)