Reid v. Huron Board of Education

REID, Appellant Appellee, Tom

v. Finch, Viken, Linda Lea Viken of Viken EDUCATION, OF HURON BOARD Pechota, Rapid City, appellant & for HURON SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. appellee. 2-2, Respondent Appellant. Freeman, Churchill, Rodney Jr. of Manol- 16514, Nos. 16525. is, Kludt, Huron, respon- Freeman & Supreme appellant. Court South Dakota. dent and

Argued Sept. 1989. MORGAN, Justice. Decided Dec. 1989. The Board of Education of the Huron (Board) appeals

School District from a (Reid) judgment reinstating Tom Reid High boys’ varsity Huron School bas- review, By ketball coach. notice of Reid appeals part that trial court’s order holding that the Contract Law (CCL), 13-43-13, through SDCL 13-43-9.1 coaching portions does not of a teacher’s affirm contract. We the decision of the trial court for a different reason. Reid is a tenured teacher who had been employed by years. Board for seven He employed by was first Board at the com- year. mencement of the 1982-83 school In teaching grade physical addition to ninth science, physical education and he was also High boys’ varsity Huron School bas- years. ketball coach for seven Reid holds a valid South Dakota certificate as required by SDCL 13-42-1. He is certified subjects to teach all within his areas of preparation, academic assign- as well as an major ment outside his areas of academic preparation: head coach. 21, 1988,

March Monday was the third March, the deadline under SDCL 13-43-9.1 notify for Board to teachers of their intent their Despite nonrenew contracts. varsity fact that Huron’s basketball season completed 14, 1988, March Reid 21, 1988, was not notified on March coaching portion the basketball of his teaching contract would not be renewed. Instead, 5, 1988, April on Reid was hand- ed his 1988 assessment evaluation by Barry (Huitema), Huitema Huron’s Ath- Director, letic was advised Huitema recommending that he was to Board that they not offer Reid the head 241 she and did claim that Board had a Reid was Sievert 1988-89. year for the duties knowledge generalized problems reply to the to given twenty-four hours coaching. with Reid’s coaching assessment evaluation. he could visit informed Reid Huitema also for the Reid offered evidence source of Taylor and Superintendent Robert with negative being of this information as some Board, declined to do so meet with but Reid (Eichman). Eichman Board member Bill of counsel. on advice season, During the 1987-88 Reid had a 1988, Eichman over who special held a confrontation with April Board On Eichman coach the team. Reid sent accept Huitema’s rec- should meeting and voted to stop interfering requesting letter that he not offered the a that Reid ommendation effecting the team because it was coaching assignment for 1988- with basketball player morale. Eichman’s actions included had all the year. Though Board 89 school embarrassing following: one of the coaching from 1983 of Reid’s evaluations players by offering buy to him black bas- responses through as well as Reid’s (the orange team’s colors are ketball shoes by prepared plan of assistance black) him off the and have work debt Huitema, doc- they did not look at these Eichman; offering buy to the coaches uments, any Huitema they nor did ask coats, clothing sport though these items of any on the questions or have discussion code; required in the dress com- were not of Reid’s con- of nonrenewal issue menting parents players certain to that exclusively on Huite- Board relied tract. hogging and the ball coaches were were Under Reid’s 1987- ma’s recommendation. and, critically, coaching properly; not most contract, $22,822. paid he teaching was sessions, notes, attending practice making of the head basketball Board’s nonrenewal informing players of their mis- and then $2,474.00 reduction coaching job meant by Reid’s letter concluded inform- takes. in Reid’s nearly percent eleven cut pay, a he, Eichman, ing that and not was Eichman salary. teacher team. It hired to coach basketball was court and a appealed to the circuit Reid made the motion to dis- Eichman who had held, pursuant to SDCL trial de novo was coach, which motion miss Reid as head fact, par- By stipulation of both 13-46-1. carried on a voice vote. given Reid not notice agreed ties that was court found that the CCL did The trial March, 1988, that Monday third coaching provisions of to teaching contract effect- portion of his Nonetheless, it found Reid’s contract. not be ing his head duties would arbitrary was Board’s decision to nonrenew renewed. by an abuse of discretion and characterized trial, give a Huitema was unable to At 1-26-36(6), provisions under the recommending nonre- principal reason for responsibility its because Board abdicated concern, general expressed He his newal. Huite- by relying recommendation of on the however, pattern roller-coaster with the in- ma, making independent instead of an performance and evaluations from Reid’s trial court or- quiry into the facts. The Despite pattern, Huite- year year. to this as head bas- reinstatement of Reid dered renewal of Reid’s ma had recommended sum compensation in the ketball coach and years. He also previous six contract $2,474.00, interest plus any prejudgment very good “a fun- that Reid was admitted costs. damentalist; strengths being his issues: appeal, raises three On skills, shooting.” Fur- handling, and ball (1) to nonrenew the the decision Whether ther, testimony Board President Ruth Reid’s contract coaching portion Taylor (Sievert) Superintendent Sievert arbitrary characterized Board’s decision to nonre- established discretion; an abuse coaching portion of new the basketball its (2) the trial court abused solely Whether on Huite- Reid’s contract was based failing grant Board’s any in- discretion recommendation and without ma’s trial; motion for new inquiry part on the of Board. dependent said, (3) proper remedy is re- or others think it should have Reid’s Whether (cite omitted). instatement as head basketball damages. simply it is fundamental that we must While strive to ascertain the real intention of review, key By Reid raises notice lawmakers, equally the it is fundamental issue: that must confine ourselves to the we finding court’s that the Whether the trial expressed language intention as in the apply Law does not Contract used. coaching portion a teacher’s of Id. at 884-5. clearly erroneous. contract was encompasses employ- SDCL ch. 13-43 applicability of the CCL to Since the and, noted, previously ment of teachers to the outcome of this coaching pivotal inclusive, SDCL 13-43-9.1 to 13-43-12 com- case, begin with the notice of review we prise purpose the For the CCL. argues that South Da- issue. Reid because CCL, in “teacher” is defined SDCL 13-43- kota defines a coach as a “teacher” and law any person engaged 12 to mean in the requires that a “teacher” be noti- the CCL children, profession teaching grades kin- fied the terms and conditions his when twelve, dergarten through public in the changed, coaching portion the contract are any person schools of South Dakota and by the of his contract was covered CCL. employed public princi- in the schools aas Further, he contends that since Board did pal, superintendent or other administrative notify change him of the in the terms employee. requires school SDCL 13-43-4 by Monday third in of his contract the a written teacher’s contract and 13- SDCL March, automatically his contract was re- 43-5, except applica- in circumstances not newed. discussion, requires in this ble a teacher’s Board, response, argues in that it would certificate before such a contract can be impractical apply spring- be to the CCL to signed. activities; therefore, time extracurricular Pertinent to our discussion whether legislature intend it the did not for to definition, is covered under this Additionally, to duties. we must turn to the certification statutes. state, contends that case law from this and ch. to SDCL 13-42 relates teacher certifica- others, supports proposition the the provides per- tion. SDCL 13-42-1 that no coaching provisions of a teacher’s contract son shall be allowed to teach or administer by are not covered CCL. “who does not have a valid certificate is- premise We discussion our on several by superintendent elementary sued construction, statutory well-settled rules of secondary authorizing education said starting with the rule that construction of a person empow- to teach.” 13-1-11 question statute is a of law and thus the ers the state board education to make all fully decision below is reviewable without carrying supervisory rules out functions as deference to decision of the trial court. elementary secondary relates to edu- Brands, Inc., Petition Famous And, particular, cation. in SDCL 13-42-3 (S.D.1984). Famous In N.W.2d provides, pertinent part: in “The South Da- Brands we also said: may kota Board of Education determine purpose regarding The of rules the con- prescribe requirements all rules and struction of statutes is to discover the applicant which an must meet in order to law, true intention of the and said inten- by be issued a teacher’s certificate the Su- tion is to ascertained the court perintendent authorizing of Education primarily language expressed from the in accept holder thereof to a or ad- statute, (cite omitted). any elementary ministrative enactments, applying legislative In secondary specified we school in the field accept legis- pro- must them as written. The certificate.” ... SDCL 13-43-5 vides, pertinent part: lative intent is determined from what the “A teacher shall said, legislature sign only upon rather than from what ... a contract exhibition of duly Reading the statutes the courses to teach a certificate valid together, adopted administrative rules contemplated under grades in a school must, qualify such school for qualify to it is clear that to contract and said these statutes coach, We read certi accreditation.” is listed under the head which de- Board of Education say that the State “teaching assignment,” rule as a fication must be “certi- a teacher termines what require has to meet the certification one to “teach.” fied” “teacher”; ments; person certified is a a teacher is entitled to the benefits promulgated The administrative rules a head Reid was certified as the CCL. Education set out the State Board of and entitled to receive the notice teachers. requirements certification provided in 13-43-9.1. He did not Require- titled Chapter 24:02:01 is ARSD and, such, 24:02:01:09 this notice as his con ments for Certification. ARSD receive Assignment Outside Teaching automatically entitled renewed. SDCL tract was Preparation- Academic Major Areas 13-43-10. of Exceptions, reads as follows: authority statutory the for Aside from major Teaching assignments outside position, it also makes common sense. this require preparation academic areas of physical can the education teacher How preparation:1 following the minimum gymin instructing students on basketball teacher, instructing yet a the coach class be (12) A coach: subject on the same after student/athletes High not? The Huron School school is 9-12, (b) a grades A coach in head recognizes as much in Handbook Coaches secondary teach- elementary or basic “Among Philosophy: the its Statement at least one course ing certificate and are contributions athletics most valuable prevention and of athletic in the care development good sportsmanship, the injuries one course in the athletic learning dignity, to win with as well activity coached[.] loss, gain one can a the education from development pride Dist. No. in the In v. Alcester School and the Schnabel (S.D.1980), 61-1, (Emphasis this community.” 295 N.W.2d 341 school held that administrative rules were court the ultimate life skills original.) These are “Generally, rules and binding as laws: taught, young people whether want our we agency regulations of an administrative playing field or on or on the in a classroom it, proceedings duly governing before court. a basketball authority of the adopted and within the Therefore, the trial court’s hold that binding they as if statutes agency are were coaching provisions finding that legislature.” enacted v. See Ward under the were not covered Reid’s contract 60-5., Viborg Dist. No. 319 N.W.2d Sch. inwas error. CCL (S.D.1982). Hartpence In v. Youth imprac- by Board’s Nor are we dissuaded (S.D. Forestry Camp, 325 N.W.2d specif- arguments. Related ticality 1982),we held that the same rules on statu case, nothing that would this there is ics of tory apply construction to administrative giving Reid the prevented Board from have requiring give regulations, us to rules Hu- required by SDCL 13-43-9.1. notice provisions. promul The rules effect to all High season School’s basketball ron gated certification to teach outside a 14, 1988, a week be- March completed on preparation major area of academic were required for the statutory deadline fore the clearly agency’s authority. within Schnabel, notice. supra. dramatics, nalism, interpretation, vocal requirements oral encom-

1. The teacher certification pass activities such as for a non-teacher to other extracurricular and individual music music debate, drama, speech, journalism, music. supervised by they a areas if are assist in these under the Continu- These areas are also covered are not covered These non-teachers teacher. note, however, ing that ex- Contract Law. We Law. Contract under debate, coaching, jour- ceptions granted are legislative argu- distinguishable one of these cases is makes a intent impracticality. terms of It ment in broad the facts at hand. legislature could not contends that Goodwin, merely In a coach was reas- to extra- have meant for CCL signed to different duties without activities, especially coaching, curricular Here, $2,474.00 pay. cut in Reid lost sports, golf such as because some coaching position in his when the contract track, completed are not before dead- Clearly, significant was nonrenewed. ignores line for notice of nonrenewal. This monetary term of his contract was altered. the rather obvious fact that teachers Ward, supra (significant pay cut in See subjects approximately academic teach for requires no- effects terms of contract and beyond two months the nonrenewal date tice). however, significantly, Most Good- period are not for this after evaluated passage decided win was before nonrenewal, yet systems our school contin- 24:02:01:09(12),defining coaching ARSD normally. ue to function We see no reason teaching. judged

why coaches cannot on the same partial period reject of time. Board’s We Nelson, supra, totally inapplicable in notifying a argument that coach of nonre- merely that it held that an amendment to a during newal a season would harm team grade requiring third teacher’s contract notify Boards of education other morale. change certification was not a in terms and of of their teachers nonrenewal contracts contract, merely conditions of the but apparent qualms dropping with no about requirement compliance for with certifica- argument student morale. Board’s con- tion statutes. Reid’s certification to act as cerning the effect on student/athlete mo- head coach was never at issue. purely conjectural. rale is While we are Board’s reliance on other states’ deci- totally unsympathic not to Board’s con- coaching teaching sions that is not must be cerns, legislature truly if the did not intend light specifics examined in the of the of coaching for and/or extracurricular activi- continuing those states’ tenure or contract CCL, by they, ties to be covered distinguishes laws. The salient fact that court, not this should be the ones to amend all of these cases from the one at hand is the law. rules, laws, that none of these states’ Nothing in opinion prevents our boards regulations coaching teaching define nonrenewing of education from the extra- does our ARSD 24:02:01:09. Neal v. portions curricular of a teacher’s contract York, 558, 205 288 School Dist. Neb. of they procedural if follow the and substan- (1980)(statutes containing N.W.2d 725 rights provisions tive of the All CCL. we systems of a teacher in school do not duties saying are that if a board chooses to coaching among recognized); list those portion teaching nonrenew that con- Spec. Chiodo v. Board Educ. Sch. of of tract, give it must the teacher statutory 1., 380, Dist. No. 298 Minn. 215 N.W.2d 806 notice, and the reasons for nonrenewal (1974) (coaching expressly not included arbitrary must capricious. not be statute, continuing so not covered under Having practicality addressed Board’s law); Smith, contract 142 State v. So.2d concerns, legal arguments. move to its (rules (Fla.App.1962) regulations 767 of The trial court relied on v. Ben- Goodwin certify coaching the state did not as a D., County nett High Sch. Ind. Sch. position teacher). held (1975), S.D. 226 N.W.2d 166 and Nel- puts particular emphasis on a line son v. Doland Bd. Educ. Doland Sch., holding of North Dakota that (S.D.1986), cases extra- 380 N.W.2d 665 proposition curricular activities such as are that our CCL does not cover coaching portion continuing not covered under that state’s of a teacher’s con- addition, blush, tract. In contract law. At first these Board cites several cases jurisdictions appealing cases other seem holding from that because North Dakota’s coaching is not statutory provisions many covered those states’ are similar to continuing tenure or Every provisions contract laws. of our law. But on a closer Kuznia, was nonrenewed as whose contract these cases are finds that analysis, one girls’ volleyball coach. to her distinguishable as well. duties as Because it determined that Coles’ Barnes Public In v. N. Cent. Enstad with director were so intertwined athletic (N.D. N.W.2d 126 No. Dist. Sch. duties, the North Dakota Su- his curricular taught Eng 1978), a tenured teacher who con- preme held that North Dakota’s Court education, girls’ lish, coached physical tinuing did to the athlet- contract law cheerleaders and supervised track job, ic director’s but a new contract pompom girls offered was contract, rely- positions of either teacher’s required her to coach additionally that ing primarily on the Enstad decision. claimed the The teacher girls’ basketball. points that North Dako- changed Again, a term out coaching duties Coles addition of a coach as a her refusal ta statutes have never defined contract. Enstad based in her and, therefore, coaching por- solely on her teacher accept the new contract to un- qualified tions of the contracts are not covered that she was not assertion continuing To The court disa der the contract law. but- girls’ basketball. position, not contend tress this Coles cites cases greed, stating: “Enstad does Minnesota, including unrea Nebraska and Neal reemployment that the offer Chiodo, say coaching is not de- imposed as that it for reasons such sonable fined as in those states. We have load or time demand an excessive work comp previously distinguished those cases based her, inadequate upon that it involved specifically our rules de- on administrative or that it was made bad ensation,2 fining coaching teaching. added). (emphasis More faith.” Id. at 134 court made it significantly, the Enstad Finally, argu we address Board’s depart had no clear that North Dakota damages, money ment that not reinstate requirements public ment instruction ment, argues proper remedy. is the The court stat regard coaching. to with of Reid is an order for that reinstatement “Perhaps a time in the ed: there will be personal services specific performance of a in high accredited schools this future when contract, prohibited by SDCL 21-9-2. We mandate, state, be re by legislative will objections to specifically answered Board’s quired high to hire school athletic coaches remedy in being proper a reinstatement qualifications[.]” Id. at possessing specific Education, 444 Jager v. Ramona Board of 135. (S.D.1989). con 27-28 Reid’s N.W.2d automatically renewed failure in tract was That time came in South Dakota provisions in SDCL to the notice the enactment of ARSD follow with 24:02:01:09(12). of contract occurred rule 13-43-9.1. No breach Our administrative contract, the trial teaching, during the life of the so only coaching but not defines not have to concern itself with requires to “hold a basic ele- court did head coaches mutuality performance, specific certificate orders for mentary secondary or by means remedy, enforcement in the care or direct and have at least one course supra. injunction Jager, mandamus. injuries and one of prevention of athletic activity in coached.” course the athletic general Though Jager answered is a reinstatement very question recent of whether Board also cites us to ques- address the proper remedy, it did not Dakota case of v. Glenburn North Coles (N.D. particular posi- to a N.W.2d 262 tion of reinstatement Public D. School Goodwin, supra, in 1989), holding point opinion with tion. Our claiming its is on trial court suggest that the disagree. involved would seem this case. We Coles Coles, reinstating Reid to the head coach- teachers, contract was erred in whose two held there was no ing position. position as to his as athletic Goodwin non-renewed coach, where a coach was and violation of the CCL and head basketball director compensation.” obviously "inadequate change al- with 2. The in Reid's contract term, leaving significant monetary him tered a his or her influ- never determined where duties with- be reassigned different pay. young But must be a stops. a cut in Goodwin A coach’sinfluence on out ence the amendments and modi- light read in ending. on with is never It lives athlete First, occurring thereafter. we fications throughout lifetime. young athlete his years la- effectively Goodwin modified two playing on the field and Lessons learned in v. Ind. School ter Collins Wakonda mind of a coach abides the counsel (S.D.1977), 1, 252 N.W.2d 646 Dist. No. throughout young athlete’s spirit a “Moreover, said: where we judg- upon it is called to use lifetime and must not offered in the new contract many display courage in the ad- ment compared teaching posi- demotion as If there a differ- versities found life. existing contract.” Id. tion held under “teacher”, it ence between a “coach” and a all, previous- have at 648. Second of only must be a nebulous distinction which noted, “coaching” coaching” and “head ly judges through lawyers and can formulate particularly positions certifiable with are legal jargon. A coach’s activities with requisites. Paying Reid his lost sal- stated are, young inherently, students educational ary assigning him other Though sports today in nature. have Collins, duties would be demotion. su- evolved, levels, big at some into time busi- pra. do not find that the trial court We overlay preposterously ness with an reinstating clearly erroneous in Reid addiction, high drug ancient salaries and coaching job.3 to the head games of athletics Greece and Rome if the Since Board concedes CCL upon development were based and ele- applies to this case it failed to meet its soul, body. mind vation law, obligations under the its issue concern- elevated, Coaching certainly should be ing a new trial is moot. only professionally, eyes not but in the We reverse the trial court’s decision as to appears the Law. It that ARSD applying to coaches and other CCL 24:02:01:09(12) specifically honed in on activities, uphold extracurricular its “coaching” being “teaching” and made finding as to reinstatement of Reid as head coaches, as, specific reference to head such coach, boys’ basketball its award Court, Reid. Coach On this we must con- $2,477.00 plus any prejudgment interest ourselves, Morgan cern as Justice has costs, and its denial of motion Board’s out, pointed with the law and administra- for a trial. new regulations thereto, pertinent tive and not We affirm the decision of the trial court bound, effect, by in be decisions of other Reid for all to reinstate the reasons herein- in courts our sister states. set out. before This in administrative rule was enacted SABERS, J., STEELE, Circuit law, powerful, 1986 and becomes more in Judge, concur. than our Goodwin Nelson decisions. HENDERSON, J., specially. concurs Goodwin was handed down in 1975 and the opinion Nelson was filed in 1986. Good- MILLER, J., concurs in result by win was modified this Court in 1977 in writing. without bend, Court, Collins. We cannot in this STEELE, Judge, sitting Circuit legislature the intent of the or the enact- WUEST, C.J., disqualified. thereunder, regulations ment of rules and HENDERSON, (specially Justice concur- duty to our will. We owe to honor an ring). regulation administrative where it straightforward, thoughts imparted unambiguous, I once read that the in and not by eternity a teacher affects because it can conflict with the source statute. punished improper 3. Board hired another coach to be the head for Board’s action. There- Knowing fore, team. coach of the basketball that the necessary it will be to reinstate Reid in his against position, trial court had ruled proceeded its position. peril. at its own Reid should not be A” by reflected “Exhibit “Exhibit Continuing provisions of the Under B”, i.e., of the 1987 Law, 13-43-9.1, an automatic renewal seq., et Contract explicitly was worded. contract as it question first ask the with this must Court of education’s non- reference to the board many in Surely, school districts with comply Did the board decision: renewal state, wording in this there are differences requirements of the procedural with If a school district of teachers’ contracts. Rap- Continuing Contract Law? Moran v. preserve degree a certain of elas- wishes 51-4, 281 Dist. No. City id Area School ticity, specifi- it seem that a contract would (S.D.1979). Secondly, per N.W.2d cally set forth that which constitutes Moran, decision must be exam- the board’s “teaching” teaching” “classroom if decision arbi- ined to determine was assignments” “additional or “extra-curricu- trary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. lar activities”. I never reach the second issue would agree Morgan’s generally I with Justice solely decision on would base this Court’s writing and wish to confine this Court’s Indeed, failed to one.* the board issue The decision to the facts at hand. critical comply procedural requirements with by facts are that the school board is bound stipu Law and Contract contract, signed by its former as exactly given notice lated that Coach Reid was not 1, 1987, April on board and the teacher March, Monday in He by the third 1988. year, for the of the school because law, told, required by state was never notice, give required failure to board’s varsity boy’s that his basketball my part, this state’s statute. For I do would not be renewed. in not desire that school boards this state hampered specifying that a teacher be hereto, Attached this reference “teaching has certain duties” and other hereof, part pertinent is the made a “assignments”. “Assignments” of “extra- “TEACHER’S CONTRACT”. Can we not not, se, per curricular should activities” the Huron School District called read that my opinion, squarely applicable within (em- it a CONTRACT”? “TEACHER’S Continuing Contract Law. South Dakota’s mine). phasis supplied Note the 1987 con- Here, quite specific the contract was as to tract, A”, specify does not labeled “Exhibit an exact Reid’s duties and sum of Coach does it “extra-curricular activities” nor performance of money specified for his rather, “assignment”; mention it refers to negate authority same. I would not and that “TEACHER’S CONTRACT” of education to direct and the boards he, Reid, “accept position”. did Coach assuage that manage the schools but would contract, “Ex- Note that the 1988 labeled very meticulous each must be board B”, (not signed by Coach Reid or the hibit only for form contracts can their contracts board) varsity boy’s eliminated basket- confusion, expense litigation. produce “position” change his ball coach and would secondary duty varsity “assistant trial empowers 13-46-6 courts “sophomore coaching”. judgments, football” to football final cases such we enter us, District’s was clear: circumstances and Huron School see “As the before profes- salary right may require his and demote his ... ”. every To cut of the case statute, it augmented by holding status. This it could not do for our sional That Educ., Monday in give notice the third Bd. 351 Sully failed to Sutera v. Buttes March, 1988, (S.D.1984) ap- further required by N.W.2d 457 and. Ed., Hence, proved in v. Ramona Bd. Jager Law. SDCL 13-43-9.1. Contract District, 444 N.W.2d 21 Reid was entitled to the contract as Ramona School Coach * Co., N.W.2d v. Minnesota Mut. Fire & Cas. 303 can affirm the trial court where it This Court right wrong Sey- (S.D.1981); Beresford, City reason. has a result for the v. 87 Owens (1972); v. Western Dakota Vocational Technical mour Nat. Northwestern S.D. 201 N.W.2d 890 Institute, (S.D.1988); 419 N.W.2d 206 Western Gillis, Falls v. 82 S.D. Bank Sioux Lines, Hughes County, Inc. v. 372 N.W.2d 106 Air (1967). N.W.2d 293 Service, (S.D.1985); Dakota Medical Inc. South penul- in the

(S.D.1989), costs as announced justifies the reinstatement terest and decision. Reid, majority in- damages, prejudgment paragraph timate

Case Details

Case Name: Reid v. Huron Board of Education

Court Name: South Dakota Supreme Court

Date Published: Dec 6, 1989

Citation: 449 N.W.2d 240

Docket Number: 16514, 16525

Court Abbreviation: S.D.