The School Board of Hernando v. Michelle Rhea, Theresa Butler
213 So. 3d 1032
Fla. Dist. Ct. App.2017Background
- Consolidated appeals by the State Board of Education and the Florida DOE and five local school boards challenging a nonfinal order.
- Plaintiffs (parents) alleged their children, who opted out of the ELA, were unlawfully retained in third grade and sought declaratory and injunctive relief.
- Suit originally filed in Leon County; involved Broward, Hernando, Orange, Osceola, Pasco, Sarasota, and Seminole counties (with some dismissals or removals later).
- DOE published a TAP and rule on good-cause exemptions and portfolio option; districts retained control over portfolios and alternative assessments.
- The trial court denied some venue motions, held a lengthy injunction hearing, then granted partial injunctive relief against HCSB and DOE; plaintiffs appealed.
- This Court reversed the venue ruling and vacated the injunction, holding home-venue privilege applied and the injunctive relief was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether home-venue privilege applies and waivers exist | School boards did not waive home venue | Venue could be outside home venue after removal | Home-venue privilege applies; no waiver; Leon County proper |
| Whether the trial court properly denied venue motions or properly held venue | Venue should be Leon County under home-venue rule | Removal to federal court did not waive home venue; alternative theories not persuasive | Reversed; venue should not have been transferred or controlled by non-home venue |
| Whether plaintiffs showed likelihood of irreparable harm and need for injunction | Injunctive relief necessary to prevent irreparable harm to students | Injury not irreparable; there are adequate remedies; policy dictates integrity of ELA process | Injunction vacated; plaintiffs failed to establish likelihood of success, irreparable harm, or public interest support |
| Whether DOE's duties or portfolio-option requirements justify relief | DOE must ensure portfolio option is offered to all qualifying students | DOE has no blanket duty to offer portfolio option to all; limited by statute and district discretion | DOE obligation not as construed; injunction overbroad and inconsistent with §1008.25(6) |
| Whether HCSB and other boards could be parties or subject to relief | Boards should be subject to relief for their actions | Venue and scope inappropriate; boards not properly subject to injunction under home-venue rule | Suit against HCSB/other boards should have been dismissed under home-venue privilege |
Key Cases Cited
- Carlile v. Game & Fresh Water Fish Comm’n, 354 So.2d 362 (Fla. 1977) (established home-venue privilege and exceptions)
- Jacksonville Elec. Auth. v. Clay Cty. Util. Auth., 802 So.2d 1190 (Fla. 1st DCA 2002) (home-venue privilege and adjudication of exceptions)
- Levy Cty. Sch. Bd. v. Bowdoin, 607 So.2d 479 (Fla. 1st DCA 1992) (waiver of home venue requires action outside home venue or change-venue filing)
- Board of County Commissioners of Madison County v. Grice, 438 So.2d 392 (Fla. 1983) (joint tortfeasor exception misapplied to co-defendants; not applicable here)
- Dep’t of Agric. v. Middleton, 24 So.3d 624 (Fla. 2d DCA 2009) (waiver analysis for home venue; removal does not darken the privilege)
- Sun-Sentinel, Inc. v. Dep’t of Children & Families, 865 So.2d 1278 (Fla. 2004) (no indispensable party exception to home-venue privilege; policy grounds insufficient)
- Hernando County School Bd. v. (related to TAP & portfolio), — (—) (cited framework on portfolio option and good-cause exemptions)
- Florida Dept. of Education v. Sun-Sentinel, — (—) (administrative policy statements and remedies under APA)