# Stevens v. Board of Education of Kent County > District Court, District of Columbia · October 8, 2014 · 70 F. Supp. 3d 566 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2740750 ## Case - **Full name:** Sherlene STEVENS, Plaintiff, v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF KENT COUNTY, Defendant - **Court:** District Court, District of Columbia - **Decided:** October 8, 2014 - **Citations:** 70 F. Supp. 3d 566; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143423; 2014 WL 5032690 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion by Lamberth - **Judges:** Judge Royce C. Lamberth - **Nature of suit:** Civil - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2740750 ## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction) - finding, after thorough analysis of the school district’s role as well as legal precedent, that “county school boards of Maryland are entitled to sovereign immunity” - holding the Anne Arundel Board of Education is an arm of the State for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity ## Opinion text UNITED STA'I`ES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) SHERLENE S'I`EVENS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Case No. 14-861 ) BoARD oF EDIJcA'rIoN oF ) F I L E D KENT COUNTY, ) ) oct o 3 2014 Defendant' ) Clerk, U.S. District & Bankruptcy ) Courts for the District 01 Co|umb|a ) MEMORANDUM Before the Court is defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, May 23, 2014, ECF No. 1-4. Upon consideration of defendant’s motion, plaintiffs 0pposition, ECF No. 5, defendant’s reply, ECF No. 7, applicable law, and the record in this case, the Court will GRANT defendant’s motion to dismiss and will DISMISS plaintiffs claims. I. BACKGROUND Plaintiff Sherlene Stevens ("Stevens") filed the instant action against the Board of Educati0n of Kent County ("the Board") in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia on April 28, 20l4. Compl. While plaintiffs claim is not entirely clear from the pleadings, she explicitly alleges a breach of contract and requests damages of $4.5 million. Id. The Board removed the action to this Court. ECF No. l. The Board now argues that this Court must dismiss her Complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and under principles of sovereign immunity as dictated by the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. Def.’s Mot. Dismiss 2; Def’s Reply to Pl.’s Response to Mot. Dismiss 3¢4.] II. Personal Jurisdiction A. LegalStandard On a motion to dismiss made pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing the court’s personal jurisdiction over a defendant. FC Inv. Grp. LC v. IFX Mkls., Ltd., 529 F.3d 1087, 1091 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The "[p]laintiff must allege specific facts on which personal jurisdiction can be based; it cannot rely on conclusory allegations." Moore v. Motz, 437 F. `Supp. 2d 88, 91 (D.D.C. 2006) (citations omitted). To assert personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant, service of process must be authorized by statute and must comport with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cohane v. Arpeja~California, Inc., 385 A.2d 153, 158 (D.C. 1978). The District of Columbia’s long-arm statute extends as far as the Due Process Clause allows, so the Court need only consider whether exercising personal jurisdiction over the defendant in this case would comport with due process. Thompson Hine, LLP v, Taieb, 734 F.3d 1l87, 1189 (D.C. Cir. 2013) ("Because we have interpreted these words to provide jurisdiction to the full extent allowed by the Due Process Clause[,] the statutory and constitutional jurisdictional questions, which are usually distinct, merge into a single inquiry." (quotations omitted)). Personal jurisdiction exists when the defendant has purposely established minimum contacts with the forum state and when the exercise of jurisdiction comports with "traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice." Asahi Metal Indus. Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U.S. 102, 113 (citations omitted). A court’s jurisdiction over a defendant satisfies due l The Board also alleges the suit must be dismissed under Federal Rule l2(b)(6), Mot. Dismiss l, but does not elaborate. Regardless, the Court finds it unnecessary to reach this issue. 2 process when there are "minimum contacts," Int’l Shoe Co. v. State of Wash., Ojjfzce of Unemployment Comp. & Placement, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945) between the defendant and the forum "such that he should reasonably anticipate being haled into court there," Worla'-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 297 (1980). "[I]t is essential in each case that there be some act by which the defendant purposefully avails itself of the privilege of conducting activities within the forum State, thus invoking the benefits and protections of its laws." Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 (1958). B. Analysis Stevens has not alleged any contacts that the Board maintains within the District of Columbia, not to mention that the Board has purposelially availed itself of the privil ge of conducting activities within the District. As a basis for personal jurisdiction, she argues o ly that she receives Social Security income from the District’s Social Security Administration egion. Pl.’s Response to Def.’s Mot. Dismiss 2. However, plaintiffs contact with the Dist `ct of Columbia is not relevant to the defendant’s contacts with the District. Therefore, St vens’ complaint must be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction over the Board. III. Venue A. LegalStandard When presented with a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule l2(b)(3), the Court "accepts the plaintiffs well-pled factual allegations regarding venue as true, draws all reasonable inferences from those allegations in the plaintiffs favor, and resolv :s any factual conflicts in the plaintiffs favor." Pendleton v. Mukasey, 552 F. Supp. 2d 14, 17 (D.D.C. 2008) (citing Darby v. U.S. Dep’z‘ of Energy, 231 F. Supp. 2d 274, 276-77 (D.D.C. 2002)). "Because it is the plaintiffs obligation to institute the action in a permissible forum, the plaintiff usually bears the burden of establishing that venue is proper." Freeman v. Fallin, 254 F. Supp. 2d 52, 56 (D.D.C. 2003). Where, as here, the district court’s jurisdiction "is founded only on diversity of citizenship," a civil action may be brought only in: (l) a judicial district where any def resides, if all defendants reside in the same State, (2) a judicial district in which a substant1 endant al part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated, or (3) a judicial district in which any defendant is s to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced, if there is no district in whi action may otherwise be brought. Kissi v. Panzer, 664 F. Supp. 2d 120, 125 (D.D.C. (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a)(2006)). B. Analysis Defendant does not "reside" in the District of Columbia, and the events giving rise plaintiffs claims seem to have occurred entirely in Maryland. As already discussed, this lacks personal jurisdiction over defendant. On this record, the Court must conclude that ve this district is improper. Where venue is improper the Court has the option of transferring the action to the venue if doing so would be in the interest of justice, or dismissing the action. 28 U.S.C. § ;ubject ch the 2009) to the Court nue in proper 1406 2006 .2 The Court concludes that because the Board is entitled to soverei immunit , no 311 Y meaningful purpose would be served by transferring this action and it will therefc dismissed. 2 This is true even where a court lacks personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Goldlawr, lnc. v. Heiman, 3 463, 466 (1962). »re be 59 U.S. IV. Eleventh Amendment Immunity A. Legal Standard Under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, the United States is immune to suit unl ess the United States explicitly consents to being sued. United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538, (1980). The Eleventh Amendment provides: "The Judicial power of the United States sh be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign Sta has long been settled that the reference to actions "against one of the United States" encom all not of the te.” It passes not only actions in which a State is actually named as the defendant, but also certain actions against state agents and state instrumentalities. Regents of the Um`v. of Cal. v. Doe, 51 425, 429 (1997). Thus, "when the action is in essence one for the recovery of money fro state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sov immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants." quotations omitted). This is true absent clear waiver by the state, FDIC v. Meyer, 510 U.S 9 U.S. m the erei gn Id. (internal .471, 474 (1994) ("Absent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Govemment and its agencies from suit."). "A party bringing suit against the United States bears the burden of proving that the government has unequivocally waived its immunity." Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2003). See also Jackson v. Bush, 448 F. Supp. 2d l98, 200 (D.D.C. 2006) (noting that "a plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12 motion to dismiss"). (b)( 1) B. Analysis Maryland’s county school boards have long been considered state agencies. Bd. ofEduc. of Baltimore Cnty. v. Zimmer-Rubert, 409 Md. 200, 206 (2009). See Lewz`s v. Bd. of Educ. of Talbot Cnty., 262 F. Supp. 2d 608, 612 (D. Md. 2003) (finding, after thorough analysis of the school district’s role as well as legal precedent, that "county school boards of Marylarrid are entitled to sovereign immunity"); State v. Ba’. of Ea’uc., 346 Md. 633, 635 n.l (1997) ("The various county boards of education are State agencies."); Board v. Secretarj) of Personmzl, 317 Md. 34, 44 n.5 (1989) ("It is settled that county boards of education are State agencies."); Norville v. Ba'. of Educ., 160 Md. App. 12, 35-62 (2004) (holding the Anne Arundel Bc ard of Education is an arm of the State for purposes of Eleventh Amendment immunity), vacated on other grouna's, 390 Md. 93 (2005). Because the Board, as an agent of the state, is entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity, Stevens may only bring a claim against the Board if the state has clearly waived this prot action. “As the Supreme Court has often observed, waiver of sovereign immunity must be ‘unequivocally expressed in the statutory text’ and ‘strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign."’ Tri-State Hosp. Supply Corp. v. United States, 341 F.3d 571, 575 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing Dep’t of Army v. Blue Fox, Inc., 525 U.S. 255, 261 (1999). To constitute a valid Eleventh Amendment immunity waiver, a statute must waive the immunity "by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text [of the statute] as will leave no room for any other reasonable construction." Ea'elman v. Jordan, 94 S. Ct. 1347, 1361 (1974) (alteration and intemal quotation marks omitted). Stevens does not even address the Board’s assertion of Eleventh Amendment imn so she certainly does not prove a waiver of that immunity. Still, the Board points to § 12- the State Govemment Article of the Annotated Code of Maryland, which states: Except as otherwise provided by a law of the State, the State, its officers, and its units may not raise the defense of sovereign immunity in a contract action, in a court of the State, based on a written contract that an official or employee executed for the State or one of its units while the official or employee was acting within the scope of the authority of the official or employee. Md. Code Ann. State Gov’t, § 12~201. This statute does not demonstrate a clear war immunity in this case. The action at hand was brought in the Superior Court for the Dis Columbia rather than in a Maryland state court, and furthermore, there is no evidence tl suit is based on a written contract. See Gillilana' v. Ba’. of Ea'uc. of Charles Cnty., No. 12 2013 WL 1777507, at *2 (4th Cir. Apr. 26, 2013) (finding this section did not waive sov immunity where suit was not brought in a state court or based on a written contract); l Maryland, Civ. H-00-3134, 2001 WL 85179 (D. Md. Jan. 29, 2001) (noting that "the wa question applies only to an action brought in a state court"). Because the Board is a state agent entitled to sovereign immunity and Stevens h demonstrated a waiver of immunity, the Court must grant the Board’s motion to dismiss. V. CONCLUSION F or the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is GRANTE[ plaintiffs claims are D1SMISSED. A separate order consistent with this Opinion shall is this 7th day of October, 2014. Signed Oetober 7, 2014 by Royce C. Lamberth, United States District Judge. t nunity, 201 of ver of rict of iat the -1628, ereign fess v. iver in as not ), and '>`Il€ OII --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2740750. Public record. Not legal advice.