02072818-1

Summary

A brief in support of a motion to dismiss complaint in Arc of Iowa, et al. v. Kim Reynolds, et al., Case No. 4:21-cv-00264, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa, filed August 1, 2022 as Document 96-1. It is submitted by eight defendant school districts, including Ankeny Community School District, Des Moines Public Schools and Waterloo Community School District. The districts argue the complaint is moot, citing the Eighth Circuit's decision in Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds, 33 F.4th 1042 (8th Cir. 2022), which vacated the preliminary injunction against enforcement of Iowa Code Section 280.31 because conditions had changed, including vaccine availability for children. They also argue that the districts are not indispensable parties and that the complaint fails to state a claim against them under Rule 12(b)(6). The seven-page brief ends with a certificate of service.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 1 of 7




                          IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                           FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA


 ARC OF IOWA, et. al,                                 Case No. 4:21-cv-00264

  Plaintiff,

 v.

 KIM REYNOLDS, et. al,                                    BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF
                                                      MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT
  Defendants.


       COME NOW, Defendants Ankeny Community School District, Davenport Community

School District, Decorah Community School District, Denver Community School District, Des

Moines Public Schools, Johnston Community School District, Linn Mar Community School

District, and Waterloo Community School District (collectively “Districts”), and submit the

following Brief in Support of their Motion to Dismiss Complaint.



                                       I. BACKGROUND

       The Complaint in this case is based on circumstances that simply no longer exist. Since

Plaintiffs’ assertion of their claims of disability discrimination on September 3, 2021, an entire

school year has passed and the landscape as it relates to COVID-19 has changed in significant

ways, including the availability of COVID-19 vaccines to children. In light of these dramatically

different surroundings, the health situations and education experiences underpinning Plaintiffs’

claims are likewise different, making this Complaint now moot. In addition, Plaintiffs do not

articulate how the actions of State officials cause the Districts to be indispensable parties, and the

Complaint fails to state an actionable claim as regards them. There is no relief that could be

granted by this Court as sought by the Complaint. Therefore, the Complaint should be dismissed.

                                                  1
       Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 2 of 7




                                               II. ARGUMENT

        A. THE   EIGHTH   CIRCUIT  HAS                                 DETERMINED                PLAINTIFFS’
           CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED.

        On September 23, 2021, Plaintiffs filed a Complaint joining Districts as defendants,

asserting that Districts are “indispensable but not adverse parties” regarding application of Iowa

Code Section 280.31. On May 16, 2022, on appeal by Defendants Kim Reynolds, Governor of

Iowa, and Ann Lebo, Director of the Iowa Department of Education, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vacated this Court’s opinion and entry of a preliminary injunction

against enforcement of Iowa Code Section 280.31. The Eighth Circuit vacated this Court’s

preliminary injunction because “[t]he passage of time and acts of third parties have mooted [it].”

Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds, 33 F.4th 1042, 1044 (8th Cir. 2022).

        The Eighth Circuit determined the issues surrounding the preliminary injunction are moot

because “the current conditions differ vastly from those prevailing when [this Court] addressed it”

including the emergence of Omicron as the predominant, less concerning variant of COVID-19

and the new, widespread availability of COVID-19 vaccines to children. 1 See id. The Eighth

Circuit found:

        COVID-19 vaccines are now available to children and adolescents over the age of
        four, greatly decreasing Plaintiffs’ children’s risk of serious bodily injury or death
        from contracting COVID-19 at school. Further, when Plaintiffs sought a
        preliminary injunction, delta was the dominant variant, producing high
        transmission rates and case loads throughout the country. Now, omicron has
        become dominant and subsided, leaving markedly lower transmission rates and
        case loads throughout Iowa and the country.




1
 Since the date of the Eighth Circuit’s decision, COVID-19 vaccines have been made even more available, from
boosters for older children and vaccines to children as young as six months of age. Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention, COVID-19 Vaccination for Children, at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-
19/planning/children.html#covid19-vax-recommendations (last accessed June 29, 2022) (“CDC recommends
COVID-19 vaccines for everyone ages 6 months and older, and boosters for everyone ages 5 years and older if
eligible.”).

                                                         2
      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 3 of 7




Id. The Eighth Circuit further determined “[n]o court could grant effective relief as sought for the

preliminary injunction because enjoining Defendants’ enforcement of Section 280.31 has no effect

on Plaintiffs’ children, whose risk of contracting COVID-19 at school is now low even without

mask requirements, as is their risk of serious injury or death.” Id. at 1045.

       B. BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS’ CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED, THE
          COMPLAINT IS NOW MOOT AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED.

       The role of this Court is limited “‘to decide actual controversies by a judgment which can

be carried into effect, and not to give opinions upon moot questions or abstract propositions, or to

declare principles or rules of law which cannot affect the matter in issue in the case before it.’” Oil

Workers v. Missouri, 361 U.S. 363, 367, 80 S. Ct. 391, 394, 4 L. Ed. 2d 373 (1960) (quoting Mills

v. Green, 159 U.S. 651, 653, 16 S. Ct. 132, 133, 40 L. Ed. 293 (1895)). A case is considered moot

when changed circumstances mean the court cannot grant effective relief. Ali v. Cangemi, 419

F.3d 722, 723 (8th Cir. 2005) (en banc). A case may also be considered moot for prudential

reasons. Id. at 724.

       The issues surrounding the preliminary injunction are the very same issues surrounding the

claims of disability discrimination asserted in the Complaint. Just as the Eighth Circuit found that

no court could grant effective relief for the preliminary injunction because of the change in

circumstances regarding COVID-19 risk, there is no relief that could be granted by this Court as

sought by the Complaint. See id. at 723. Therefore, the Complaint is moot and should be

dismissed.

       Without the same circumstances that existed when the Complaint was filed, Plaintiffs are

essentially asking this Court for an advisory opinion on the scope of Iowa Code Section 280.31.

See Oil Workers, 361 U.S. at 367, 80 S. Ct. at 394, 4 L. Ed. 2d 373. However, the Eighth Circuit

made it clear that Iowa Code Section 280.31 unambiguously states it does not apply if another

                                                  3
      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 4 of 7




state or federal law requires masks. See Arc of Iowa, 33 F.4th at 1045. In the event that any

Plaintiffs may have an actual controversy arising out of this framework, they retain the ability to

litigate it anew – and Districts retain the ability to defend it – based on their changed health and

education circumstances.

       C. THE DISTRICTS ARE NOT INDISPENSABLE PARTIES AND THE
          COMPLAINT FAILS TO STATE AN ACTIONABLE CLAIM AS REGARDS
          THEM.

       In addition, Plaintiffs do not articulate how the actions of State officials cause the Districts

to be “indispensable but not adverse parties,” or in any other way necessary parties, to the relief

sought by the Complaint.

       Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) provides for a pre-answer motion based on the

defense of “failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” For a plaintiff to survive a

Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, the complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as

true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678

(2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 500 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). This standard “demands

more than an unadorned the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation.”                Id. at 678.    A

complaint must contain more than “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action.”

Twombly, 550 U.S at 555. Although a district court must accept the factual allegations contained

in the complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the non-moving party, mere

“labels and conclusions” or “naked assertion[s]” devoid of “further factual enhancement” are not

sufficient. Id. at 557; see also Braden v. Wal–Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 595 (8th Cir. 2009).

A plaintiff’s “claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the

court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).



                                                  4
      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 5 of 7




        Here, the Complaint fails to state an actionable claim against the Districts. The Complaint

instead targets the actions of State officials – Plaintiffs claim, “Defendant State Officials’ actions

have put parents in the impossible situation of having to choose between their child’s heath [sic]

and their child’s education,” “Defendant State Officials are violating Title II of the ADA, Section

504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution,” and

“Defendant State Officials have directly harmed and continue to harm each of the named

Plaintiffs.” Complaint at ¶¶ 58-59, 61. It is clear from the face of the Complaint, and the ensuing

proceedings to date, that Plaintiffs’ real dispute lies with Defendants Kim Reynolds and Ann Lebo

regarding the enforcement of Iowa Code Section 280.31.

        As regards the Districts, the Complaint contains vague and conclusory allegations which

do not provide a sufficient basis for a plausible claim for relief. See Twombly, 500 U.S. at 570.

Plaintiffs filed the Complaint asserting that the Districts are “indispensable but not adverse

parties.” Complaint at ¶ 27. It is clear the Plaintiffs believe the Districts’ participation is necessary

not because of any actual dispute between them, but because of their alleged role in

“implementing” HF 847. See Complaint at ¶¶ 1-3. However, the Districts are not necessary

parties because complete relief can be obtained absent their participation in the action. See LLC

Corp. v. Pension Ben. Guar. Corp., 703 F.2d 301, 305 (8th Cir. 1983) (discussing Federal Rule 19

and explaining that a “speculative possibility of further litigation” is not grounds for required

joinder because the focus is on relief between the parties). The relief that the Plaintiffs seek from

the State officials is independent of the Districts. See Estate of McFarlin ex rel. Laass v. City of

Storm Lake, 277 F.R.D. 384, 391 (N.D. Iowa 2011). Indeed, such relief is independent of every

other school district in the state, which the Plaintiffs did not deem necessary parties, and warrants

dismissal of the Districts. Anderson v. Home Ins. Co., 724 F.2d 82, 84 (8th Cir. 1983) (holding



                                                   5
      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 6 of 7




that where a defendant was “not an indispensable party” as defined by Rule 19, the district court

properly dismissed the plaintiffs’ claim against said defendant pursuant to Rule 21).

       Therefore, the Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and should

be dismissed.

                                     III. CONCLUSION

       For the reasons set forth above, the Complaint against the Districts should be dismissed.


                                              /s/ Miriam D. Van Heukelem
                                             Miriam D. Van Heukelem (AT0010074)
                                             AHLERS & COONEY, P.C.
                                             100 Court Avenue, Suite 600
                                             Des Moines, Iowa 50309
                                             Telephone: 515-243-7611
                                             Facsimile: 515-243-2149
                                             E-mail: mvanheukelem@ahlerslaw.com


                                              /s/ Kristy M. Latta
                                             Kristy M. Latta (AT0004519)
                                             AHLERS & COONEY, P.C.
                                             100 Court Avenue, Suite 600
                                             Des Moines, Iowa 50309
                                             Telephone: 515-243-7611
                                             Facsimile: 515-243-2149
                                             E-mail: klatta@ahlerslaw.com

                                             ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS ANKENY
                                             COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
                                             DAVENPORT COMMUNITY SCHOOL
                                             DISTRICT, DECORAH COMMUNITY SCHOOL
                                             DISTRICT, DENVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL
                                             DISTRICT, DES MOINES PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
                                             JOHNSTON COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
                                             LINN MAR COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT,
                                             AND WATERLOO COMMUNITY SCHOOL
                                             DISTRICT




                                                6
      Case 4:21-cv-00264-RP-HCA Document 96-1 Filed 08/01/22 Page 7 of 7




Original electronically filed.
Copy served electronically:
                                                                         CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Rita Bettis Austen, Shefali Aurora, and Leah       The undersigned certifies that the foregoing instrument was served
                                                   upon all parties to the above cause to each of the attorneys of record
Patton                                             herein at their respective addresses disclosed on the pleadings, on
                                                      August 1, 2022
ACLU of Iowa Foundation Inc.
505 Fifth Avenue, Suite 901                        By      ☐ U.S. Mail          ☐ Fax

Des Moines, IA 50309-2316                                  ☐ Hand Delivery        ☐ Overnight Carrier

                                                           ☒    Electronically through CM-ECF    ☐ E-mail
Cynthia A. Miller and Catherine Johnson
                                                           ☐ Electronically through Efile
Disability Rights Iowa
666 Walnut Street, Suite 1440                       Signature      /s/ Anne Stokely

Des Moines, IA 50309

Louise Melling
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
125 Broad St.
New York, NY 10004

Susan Mizner
American Civil Liberties Union Foundation
39 Drumm Street
San Francisco, CA 94111

John A. Freedman and Tara L. Williamson
Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP
601 Massachusetts Ave, NW
Washington, DC 20001

Shira Wakschlag
The Arc of the United States
1825 K Street, NW, Suite 1200
Washington, DC 20006

Thomas J. Duff and Jim T. Duff
Duff Law Firm, PLC
4090 Westown Parkway, Suite 102
West Des Moines, IA 50266

Timothy A. Clausen
Klass Law Firm, L.L.P.
Mayfair Center, Upper Level
4280 Sergeant Road, Suite 290
Sioux City, IA 51106




                                               7


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.iasd.77124.96.1.pdf

Size

294,116 bytes

SHA-256

12d1dc839b01a87e967bf6de758fcefe05e3d696b2f781b81dbcbf792d398231

Our copy

gov.uscourts.iasd.77124.96.1.pdf

Original

archive.org