The School Board of Hernando v. Michelle Rhea, Theresa Butler, 16-3914

Background

A group of parents filed suit in Leon County seeking declaratory and injunctive relief after their third‑grade children were not promoted because they refused to meaningfully complete the statewide English Language Arts (ELA) test and were not offered a "portfolio option."
Plaintiffs alleged DOE misinterpreted section 1008.25, Fla. Stat., and that local school boards wrongfully retained students who had no reading deficiency; claims included due process and equal protection theories.
Multiple county school boards and the State Board/Commissioner of Education (DOE) moved to dismiss or transfer based on the governmental "home‑venue" privilege; the trial court deferred venue rulings, removed to federal court briefly, then remanded.
The trial court denied the venue motions, found DOE had misinformed boards, and entered a partial temporary injunction requiring DOE to direct boards to offer the portfolio option broadly and ordering Hernando County School Board (HCSB) to provide portfolios to requesting parents.
Defendants appealed. The district court reversed the venue ruling (holding school boards were entitled to be sued only in their home counties) and vacated the injunction as unsupported and overbroad.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether school boards waived the home‑venue privilege so suit in Leon County was proper	Plaintiffs relied on defendants' removal to federal court and participation in proceedings outside home counties as waiver	School boards argued they consistently objected to venue, sought transfer to home counties, and removal to the only available federal court did not waive home‑venue privilege	Reversed: home‑venue privilege not waived; suit should have been brought in defendants' home counties
Whether an "indispensable party" exception to home‑venue exists allowing venue in Leon County because DOE is a party	Plaintiffs argued DOE was indispensable, so Leon County (DOE's home venue) was proper for all defendants	Defendants argued no statutory or recognized exception; DOE not indispensable for school‑board promotion decisions	Rejected: no indispensable‑party exception to home‑venue privilege; DOE not indispensable here
Whether plaintiffs established entitlement to a preliminary injunction against DOE	Plaintiffs argued irreparable harm from retention and DOE misstatements prevented portfolios being offered	DOE argued plaintiffs lacked likelihood of success, had adequate remedies (e.g., APA procedures), and injunction conflicted with statute and federal testing requirements	Vacated: plaintiffs failed to show likelihood of success or lack of adequate remedy; injunction was overbroad and contrary to law/public interest
Whether plaintiffs established injunction against HCSB to require offering portfolio option	Plaintiffs argued HCSB improperly refused portfolios to students who minimally participated	HCSB argued venue was improper and, on merits, students who refused to answer test questions did not "participate" so statutory triggers for portfolio/notice did not apply	Vacated (and not reached on merits because case should have been dismissed for improper venue); injunction unsupported if reached

Key Cases Cited

Brown v. Nagelhout, 84 So. 3d 304 (Fla. 2012) (standard of review for venue denial)
Sun‑Sentinel Co. v. Fla. Dep’t of Children & Families, 865 So. 2d 1278 (Fla. 2004) (limits on creating exceptions to home‑venue privilege)
Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 354 So. 2d 362 (Fla. 1978) (governmental home‑venue principle)
Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Clay Cty. Util. Auth., 802 So. 2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (home‑venue and related precedent)
Board of County Comm’rs of Madison County v. Grice, 438 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 1983) (scope of joint‑tortfeasor exception to venue)
Dep’t of Agric. v. Middleton, 24 So. 3d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (when transfer or forum selection does not waive home‑venue privilege)