United States District Court
For the Northern District of California
Dianna Dariano individually and on behalf of their minor child M.D., John Darianoindividually and on behalf of their minor child M.D., Julie Ann Fagerstrom individually and onbehalf of their minor child D.M., Kurt Fagerstrom individually and on behalf of their minor childD.M., Kendall Jones individually and on behalf of their minor child D.G., and Joy Jones individuallyand on behalf of their minor child D.G. (collectively, “Plaintiffs”).
Individual Defendants are Nick Boden in his official and individual capacity as Principalof Live Oak High School, and Miguel Rodriguez in his official and individual capacity as AssistantPrincipal of Live Oak High School.
(hereafter, “Motion,” Docket Item No. 12.)
(hereafter, “Complaint,” Docket Item No. 1.)2this fragile balance that the First Amendment doctrine addressing student’s rights to free speech andfree expression in public schools has recognized and warily navigated over the last forty years. Thecase before the Court requires the Court to traverse this important legal territory. What is before theCourt today is a Motion to Dismiss for lack of standing that, if granted, would foreclose furtherinquiry into these vital considerations. Thus, it is with utmost care that the Court approaches thisanalysis.Plaintiffs
bring this action against Morgan Hill Unified School District and certainindividuals,
(collectively, “Defendants”), alleging violations of their First and FourteenthAmendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of their right to Freedom of Expression under the California Constitution, Art. I, § 2. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants violatedtheir federal and state constitutional rights to freedom of expression, due process and equalprotection by disallowing them from wearing American flag shirts in a public high school on Cincode Mayo Day.Presently before the Court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject MatterJurisdiction.
The Court conducted a hearing on February 7, 2011. Based on the papers submittedto date and oral argument, the Court GRANTS in part and DENIES in part Defendants’ Motion toDismiss.
In a Complaint filed on June 23, 2010,
Plaintiffs allege as follows:
Case5:10-cv-02745-JW Document36 Filed02/17/11 Page2 of 16