Greg BAILEY; Jennifer Bailey, Plaintiffs-Appellants, and Crystal McGee; David Edmonds, Jr.; Jill Edmonds, Plaintiffs, v. VIRGINIA HIGH SCHOOL LEAGUE, INCORPORATED, Defendant-Appellee.
No. 11-2369
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
July 18, 2012
Submitted: June 15, 2012.
Counsel of record for the parties are as follows:
Appellants: Martin W. Wolf and Benjamin H. Carney
Quinn, Gordon & Wolf, Chtd. 102 W Pennsylvania Ave., Suite 402 Baltimore, MD 21204 (410) 825-2300
Mark H. Steinbach O‘Toole, Rothwell, Nassau & Steinbach 1350 Connecticut Avе., N.W., Suite 200 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 775-1550
John J. Roddy Elizabeth A. Ryan Roddy, Klein & Ryan 727 Atlantic Ave., 2nd Floor Boston, MA 02111 (617) 357-5500
Appellees: Andrew S. Doctoroff Jason R. Abel Honigman Miller Schwartz and Cоhn LLP 2290 First National Building 660 Woodward Ave. Detroit, MI 48226 (313) 465-7360
Kimberly Manuelides Geoffrey M. Gamble Saul Ewing LLP Lockwood Place 500 E Pratt St., 8th Floor Baltimоre, MD 21202-3133 (410) 332-8844.
IV.
Accordingly, pursuant to the Maryland Uniform Certifications of Questions of Law Act, we hereby ORDER: (1) that the question stated аbove be certified to the Court of Appeals of Maryland for answer; (2) that the Clerk of this Court forward to the Court of Appeals of Maryland, under the official seal of this Court, a copy of this Order, together with the original copies of the record before this Court to the extent requested by the Court of Appeals of Maryland; and (3) that the Clerk of this Court fulfill any request for all or part of the record simply upon notification from the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals of Maryland.
QUESTION CERTIFIED.
Hugh F. O‘Donnell, Client Centered Legal Services of Southwest Virginia, Norton, Virginia, for Appellants. R. Crаig Wood, McGuirewoods LLP, Charlottesville, Virginia; Aaron James Longo, McGuirewoods LLP, Charlotte, North Carolina, for Apрellee.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Greg and Jennifer Bailey appeal the distriсt court‘s order dismissing their complaint against the Virginia High School League, Inc. (“VHSL“), for failure to state a claim,
We rеview de novo a district court‘s grant of a motion to dismiss. E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. v. Kolon Indus., Inc., 637 F.3d 435, 440 (4th Cir.2011). While a court, in ruling on a
On appeal, the Baileys challenge the district сourt‘s statement in the dismissal order that it had considered “[t]he facts, as set forth in the plaintiffs’ Complaint or as agreed by the parties at oral argument.” The Baileys allege that this statement reflects the district court‘s reliance оn facts outside the complaint, and that such reliance is reversible error.
In deciding whether a complaint will survive a motion to dismiss, a court evaluates the complaint and any documents attached or incorporated by reference. Sec‘y of State for Defence v. Trimble Navigation Ltd., 484 F.3d 700, 705 (4th Cir.2007); Phillips v. LCI Int‘l, Inc., 190 F.3d 609, 618 (4th Cir.1999). However, the district court cаnnot go beyond these documents on a
“[S]tatements by сounsel that raise new facts constitute matters beyond the pleadings and cannot be considered on a
The Baileys also challenge the district court‘s classification of VHSL as an “organization,” because VHSL‘s corporate identity is important “in gauging how the edicts of an independent private corporation can outweigh the fundamental right of a parent to make decisions about the welfare of one‘s child.” We reject this argument as it contradicts the Baileys’ own description of VHSL in the complaint as, in essеnce, a state actor.
Finally, the Baileys challenge the district court‘s dismissal of their claim that the transfer rule intеrferes with their fundamental right to make decisions in the best interest of their son. See Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57, 66, 120 S.Ct. 2054, 147 L.Ed.2d 49 (2000) (“[I]t cannot now be doubted that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment protects the fundamental right of parents to makе decisions concerning the care, custody, and control of their children.“) Although “the Supreme Court has never been called upon to define the precise boundaries of a parent‘s right to control a child‘s upbringing and education,” C.N. v. Ridgewood Bd. of Educ., 430 F.3d 159, 182 (3rd Cir.2005), it is clear that the right is neither absolute nor unqualified, Lehr v. Robertson, 463 U.S. 248, 256, 103 S.Ct. 2985, 77 L.Ed.2d 614 (1983) (holding that constitutionаl protection is available for parent-child relationship in “appropriate cases“). See Littlefield v. Forney Indep. Sch. Dist., 268 F.3d 275 (5th Cir.2001) (upholding school district‘s mandatory school uniform policy); Hooks v. Clark County Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1036, 1036 (9th Cir.2000) (upholding state statute denying speech therapy services to home-schooled children); Swanson v. Guthrie Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1-L, 135 F.3d 694 (10th Cir.1998) (upholding school district‘s full-time attendance policy); Herndоn v. Chapel Hill-Carrboro City Bd. of Educ., 89 F.3d 174 (4th Cir.1996) (upholding school district‘s mandatory community service program).
The Baileys’ right to cоntrol individual components of their son‘s education, including his participation in interscholastic sports and othеr activities, is not constitutionally protected, and the district court correctly dismissed this claim. Finally, because the complaint does not implicate a fundamental right, the Baileys’ reliance on Tennessee Secondary Sch. Athletic Ass‘n v. Brentwood Acad., 551 U.S. 291, 127 S.Ct. 2489, 168 L.Ed.2d 166 (2007), is misplaced.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dispense with oral argument becаuse the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the cоurt and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.