• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  NATIONAL WRESTLING COACHES )ASSOCIATION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Case No. 1:02CV00072 EGS)UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )EDUCATION, ))Defendant. )
DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, defendant UnitedStates Department of Education respectfully moves this Court for an order dismissing this actionfor lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The grounds in support of this motion are set out morefully in the attached memorandum.Dated: May 29, 2002Respectfully submitted,ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR.Assistant Attorney GeneralROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR.United States Attorney SHEILA LIEBER JOSEPH W. LOBUE, D.C. Bar # 293514U.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division901 E Street, N.W., Room 1060Washington, D.C. 20004Telephone: (202) 514-4640Attorneys for Defendant
 
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTFOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA  NATIONAL WRESTLING COACHES )ASSOCIATION, et al., ))Plaintiffs, ))v. ) Case No. 1:02CV00072 EGS)UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )EDUCATION, ))Defendant. )
MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ROBERT D. McCALLUM, JR.Assistant Attorney GeneralROSCOE C. HOWARD, JR.United States AttorneySHEILA LIEBER JOSEPH W. LOBUE, D.C. Bar # 293514U.S. Department of JusticeCivil Division901 E Street, N.W., Room 1060Washington, D.C. 20004Telephone: (202) 514-4640Attorneys for Defendant
 
-i-
TABLE OF CONTENTSPage
PRELIMINARY STATEMENT..................................................1BACKGROUND..............................................................4A.Title IX..........................................................4 B.HEW's 1975 Implementing Regulation.................................5C.The 1979 Policy Interpretation........................................6D.The Department of Education Organization Act..........................8E.The 1996 Clarification..............................................9ARGUMENT................................................................11I.BECAUSE PLAINTIFFS' ALLEGED INJURIES ARE NOTREDRESSABLE BY THIS COURT, PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING TO MAINTAIN THIS ACTION................................11II.PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS ARE BARRED BY SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY...........19A.Because Plaintiffs Have An Adequate Remedy In A Court AgainstRecipient Institutions, The Administrative Procedure Act Does NotAuthorize Judicial Review .........................................20B.Plaintiffs' Challenges to the 1980 Regulation and the 1979 PolicyInterpretation Are Barred By The Statute of Limitations...................25CONCLUSION............................................................. 34
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...