Nonfiction
Jason Brown v. Roseville School District
Excerpts from Memorandum of Law filed in Support of Request for Temporary Injunction
(Citations Omitted)
Statement of Facts
On October 16, 2006, while each was driving during the school day to a class held at a local community college, high school senior Jason Brown and a friend were goofing around with air guns, pretending to shoot each other. Because this was a prohibited activity during a school-related part of his day, Roseville School District took steps to expel Jason from school. Jason and his parents entered into negotiations with the school district which resulted in the creation of an agreement by which Jason would voluntarily withdraw from school instead of being expelled. For current purposes, the relevant portion of the agreement is a clause that prohibits Jason from entering onto school district property for a period of time.
Shortly after the agreement was signed, Jason had some questions about what he could and could not do. Jason phoned Joe Wemette, the district's Assistant Superintendent and the person who had signed the agreement on behalf of the school district. Jason asked if he was prohibited from attending Roseville hockey games. Wemette told him that he was free to attend hockey games because they were held at off-site private locations, and did not occur on school district property.
In that same conversation Jason asked if he was similarly free to attend the 2007 senior prom, which was also being held off-site on private property. Mr. Wemette answered yes, and said he was agreeing because the same logic applied as it did with the off-site hockey games. With this reassurance in mind, Jason and his date Samantha made typical prom arrangements: purchase of a dress, rental of a tuxedo, rental of a limousine, etc.
Less than two weeks before prom, Jason has been informed that the school district changed its mind about the interpretation of the contract between the parties. The district has now decided that "district" property includes any property where a school-related event is taking place. Jason, his father, and Jason's lawyer (the undersigned) all tried to contact Wemette to learn what had caused the district's change of mind. Wemette did not answer any of the phone calls or emails that were sent to him.
Prom is now only a week away. Injunctive relief ordering the school district to allow Jason to attend the prom is necessary to prevent the school district from wrongfully and baselessly denying Jason permission to attend.
Argument
One of the factors considered by Minnesota courts in determining whether a temporary injunction should be issued is consideration of the harm to be suffered by the moving party if the relief is denied, compared to that inflicted on the non-moving party if the order is issued. If the requested relief for a temporary injunction is not granted, Jason will suffer irreparable harm. The senior prom is a one-time event. There will never be another chance to re-do this missed opportunity. In addition, if Jason cannot attend prom, the special clothing already purchased, the deposits on the limousine and the tuxedo, the flowers paid for and waiting – all go down the drain. On the other hand, if the requested relief is granted, the school district will suffer no harm whatsoever. One extra student at the prom – that's all.
Another factor to be considered is the likelihood of the moving party's success on the merits. To date, the one and only rationale provided by the school district for its action is that it now construes the words "district property" to mean something like "property owned and used by the school district, as well as any private property if there happens to be a school-related event taking place." This definition is found nowhere in the agreement between the parties, however. Nowhere in the contract is there any suggestion that "district property" means anything other than its common, ordinary meaning – property that the school district owns.
If the school district wanted the ordinary term to have a different meaning, then the district was free to draft the agreement to provide for that. It did not. If contract language is ambiguous, it must be interpreted according to the understanding of the non-drafting party. One of the places to look for the parties' understanding of the meaning of a contractual term is their course of dealing. Here the evidence is clear: Jason was allowed to attend high school hockey games without comment or complaint by the school district. Assistant Superintendent Wemette specifically stated that Jason could attend hockey games because the property where the games were held was private and was only rented by the school district, it was not "district property." Based on the parties' dealings to date, the term "district property" is not ambiguous. It does not include private property rented by the school district. If the court finds that the term is in fact ambiguous, it must be interpreted on Jason's behalf, since it was the school district that wrote the contract