Plaintiff Lou Ella Seymore sued defendant Tulsa Technology Center School District in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma raising claims of discrimination and retaliation in violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and Title IX of the Education Amendment of 1972. Before the court are Plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify Order, Defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint without Prejudice, and Defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Response to Partial Motion to Dismiss Complaint.
Statement of Undisputed Facts
Initially, three plaintiffs (Joseph Parker, Yvette Hill, and Lou Ella Seymore) filed this case against Tulsa Technology Center School District alleging various discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court dismissed all of the plaintiffs’ claims, including Seymore’s request for injunctive relief, which was found to be moot because she failed to allege that she was currently attending or intended to attend TTC in the future.
Seymore appealed the Court’s ruling to the Tenth Circuit. Parker and Hill did not join in the appeal and were terminated as parties to the case. The Tenth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part, remanding the case for further proceedings on Seymore’s Title VI claim only.
The Court granted Seymore leave to file an amended complaint to clarify the factual basis and relief sought in her Title VI retaliation claim but advised that she would not be permitted to re-assert claims that did not survive her appeal. Seymore filed an amended complaint re-asserting her Title VI retaliation claim and seeking money damages, as well as declaratory, injunctive, and equitable relief. She requested an injunction prohibiting defendant from engaging in discriminatory and retaliatory acts against students/plaintiffs who engage in protected activities.
The amended complaint contained no allegations that Seymore was taking classes at TTC or that she intended to enroll in classes. In response to the motion to dismiss, Seymore attached a document showing she had enrolled in a one-day class at TTC on November 16, 2024, but this evidence was not included in her amended complaint.
Legal Analysis
Plaintiff’s Demand for Injunctive Relief
The Court found it unnecessary to decide whether the Tenth Circuit’s decision foreclosed the possibility of injunctive relief because Seymore’s amended complaint contained no factual allegations that would support the entry of injunctive relief against the defendant. The Court noted that a plaintiff may not amend her complaint simply by including new allegations in a response to a motion to dismiss.
The Court explained that its prior opinion and order had dismissed Seymore’s demand for injunctive relief due to her failure to allege any facts suggesting that she was attending classes at TTC. Seymore was on notice before filing her amended complaint that specific allegations concerning her enrollment status at TTC were required to seek injunctive relief, yet she failed to include such allegations in her amended complaint.
Motion to Strike
The Court determined that Seymore’s additional factual allegations in her response to the motion to dismiss that were not included in her amended complaint were not legally significant. However, the Court saw no reason to strike these allegations from her response.
Motion to Clarify
The Court found that Seymore’s motion to clarify her right to seek injunctive relief was moot in light of the Court’s decision to dismiss her demand for injunctive relief.
The Court granted defendant’s Partial Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint without Prejudice, dismissed plaintiff’s demand for injunctive relief, denied defendant’s Motion to Strike Portions of Plaintiff’s Response, and found plaintiff’s Motion to Clarify Order and Brief in Support to be moot.
Schrag on Law 