Student's Violation of Conduct Code Civil Rights Suit Against University, Plus Insurance, Contract, and Education Law Matters - U.S. Third Circuit
U.S. Third Circuit - The FindLaw 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals Opinion Summaries Blog

Student's Violation of Conduct Code Civil Rights Suit Against University, Plus Insurance, Contract, and Education Law Matters

Steven I. v. Cent. Bucks Sch. Dist., 10-1179, involved plaintiff's parents' suit seeking compensatory education from the 1997-1998 school year through the filing date for failure to provide a free appropriate public education under IDEA 2004 and section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act.  In reversing the district court's judgment that the two year statute of limitations in IDEA 2004 did not bar plaintiffs' claims. the court remanded the matter in concluding that, because the statute of limitations did not become effective until seven months after the enactment of IDEA 2004, it is reasonable to apply it to claims based on conduct that pre-dated the law's passage.

 

McCauley v. Univ. of the Virgin Islands, 09-3735, involved a plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. section 1983 suit against a university, its president and two other individuals arising from the university's decision charging plaintiff with violating provisions of the Student Code of Conduct (Code) for his alleged harassment of an individual who had accused his friend of rape, claiming that various Code provisions violated the First Amendment.

The court affirmed the district court's dismissal of all claims against the university in holding that it was not a "person" for purposes of section 1983.  Also, the two individuals, as employees of the university acting in their official capacities, were likewise not "persons" for purposes of section 1983.  The adjudication of plaintiff's as-applied challenge to Major Infraction Paragraph E was unnecessary because the district court had already concluded that the paragraph was facially unconstitutional. District court's dismissal of Paragraph B for lack of an injury should be reversed and judgment should be entered in favor of the two employees because that paragraph has a limited, constitutional construction.  Lastly, the court reversed in part as Paragraphs H and R are unconstitutional infringements on students' First Amendment right to free speech.

EBC, Inc. v. Clark Bldg. Sys., Inc., 09-1182, involved a subcontractor's suit for breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, unjust enrichment, and an account stated. In affirming the district court's judgment, the court held that when reviewing a motion for summary judgment, a district court does not abuse its discretion under Rule 30(e) when it refuses to consider proposed substantive changes that materially contradict prior deposition testimony, if the party proffering the changes fails to provide sufficient justification.  Here, the district court correctly granted judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied plaintiff's motions for reconsideration as the court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to consider plaintiff's untimely and contradictory errata sheet.  Also, the district court's rejection of plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim is affirmed.  Lastly, district court did not err in rendering judgment under Rule 52(c) on the claim for fraudulent inducement as the district court did not clearly err in finding that plaintiff had failed to prove a material misrepresentation by clear and convincing evidence.

Ario v. The Underwriting Members of Syndicate 53 at Lloyds for the 1998 Year of Account, 09-1921, involved the Insurance Commissioner's motion (as liquidator on behalf of primary insurers)  to confirm in part, and to vacate in part, the award of the liquidation proceedings, arising from a dispute between primary insurers and reinsurers involving their reinsurance treaties.  First, the court held that removal was proper under 9 U.S.C. section 205.  Next, the court held that the FAA provides the applicable vacatur standards and not those of the PUAA.  The court affirmed district court's confirmation of the arbitration award, as well as the district court's denial of the motion to remand, but its decision to grant Rule 11 sanctions for the motion to remand is reversed as the motion to remand was not patently lacking in merit. 

Related Resources: