Nkemakolam v. St. John's Military School
876 F. Supp. 2d 1240
D. Kan.2012Background
- Seven plaintiffs (six parents on behalf of minors, one former student) allege mistreatment at St. John’s Military School.
- Each student’s enrollment contract with a parent/guardian contains an arbitration clause limiting disputes to arbitration with venue Salina, Kansas, but excludes claims by the student.
- The students did not sign the enrollment contract themselves.
- St. John’s moves to dismiss or compel arbitration, arguing the contracts cover the student claims, and moves to strike exhibits attached to the amended complaint.
- The court converts the Rule 12(b)(1)/(3)/(6) motion to summary judgment and analyzes the arbitration and forum-selection clauses.
- The court denies dismissal or arbitration, grants the motion to strike two exhibits as immaterial, and denies Topeka as the place of trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the arbitration clause covers minor students’ claims | Bizilj supports arbitration for the parents only. | Arbitration clause extends to all disputes between SJMS and Parent/Guardian, including students’ claims. | Arbitration clause does not encompass minor students’ claims. |
| Whether the forum-selection clause broadens to include students’ claims | Forum clause could require Saline County proceedings and encompass all related actions. | Forum clause is tied to arbitration; not broader than arbitration. | Forum selection clause not broader; not applicable to students’ claims. |
| Whether the exhibits (x-ray and photograph) attached to the complaint should be stricken | Exhibits are relevant to alleged facts and proper attachments. | Exhibits are improper attachments per Rule 10/Rule 12(f). | Exhibits are immaterial and stricken. |
| Whether Topeka should be designated as the place of trial | Kansas City is more convenient for plaintiffs. | Topeka would be more convenient for SJMS and fewer witnesses travel. | Denies transfer; keep Kansas City as place of trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bonin v. Vannaman, 261 Kan. 199 (1996) (minor’s action must be pursued by guardian; signs parent-only contracts)
- Fleetwood Enters., Inc. v. Gaskamp, 280 F.3d 1069 (5th Cir.2002) (arbitration scope and minor claims analysis)
- Global Travel Marketing, Inc. v. Shea, 908 So.2d 392 (Fla. 2005) (parent may sign on behalf of child under certain terms)
- Hojnowski v. Vans Skate Park, 901 A.2d 384 (N.J. 2006) (contract language distinguishes minor as party; arbitration scope)
- Cross v. Carnes, 132 Ohio App.3d 157 (1998) (arbitration provision applied to disputes arising from minor-related matters)
- Perkins v. Silverstein, 939 F.2d 463 (7th Cir.1991) (newspaper articles not within Rule 10(c) writings)
- Rose v. Bartle, 871 F.2d 331 (3d Cir.1989) (exhibits not written instruments under Rule 10(c))
- Bizilj v. St. John’s Military School, 2008 WL 4394713 (D. Kan. 2008) (arbitration provision not covering minor-student claims; similar to Murguia decision)