JOVANI PATTERSON AND ules SHAWNDA YVETTE PATTERSON CIRCUIT COURT Plaintiff, ron a BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF EN Ue ree SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS, ef al. CASE NO.: 24-C-22-000477 Defendants. DEFENDANT BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS” MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, Defendant Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners’ (“BCBSC”), through its undersigned counsel and pursuant to Maryland Rules 2-311 and 2-322, hereby moves to dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed against it and the Mayor and City Couneil of Baltimore City by Plaintiffs Jovani Patterson and Shawnda Yvette Patterson (collectively “Plaintifis”) and, in support thereof, states the following: 1. Plaintiffs, taxpayers in Baltimore City, are seemingly dissatisfied with how BCBSC operates the Baltimore City Public School System, commonly known as Baltimore City Public Schools (“City Schools” or the “School System”), and are improperly attempting to involve this Court to address their overall dissatisfaction with the operation of the School System and to issue broad and sweeping declaratory and injunctive relief. 2. Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint does not cure the fatal flaws of the original Complaint, Plaintiffs lack standing and their First Amended Complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. As set forth more fully in the accompanying Memorandum in Support, the First Amended Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the following reasons: (a) This Court is not the forum to decide the various educational-related matters that are at the heart of the First Amended Complaint, The Maryland State Board of Education“MSBE”) “exercises broad dominion and control over the administration of the public-school system in Maryland.” Donlon y. Montgomery Cnty. Public Schools, 460 Md. 62, 81 (2018). There is fully adequate state infrastructure, including the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE”,! to address the educational matters that are at the heart of Plaintif{s’ lawsuit. (6) Although styled as a taxpayer standing case, the First Amended Complaint is really an education malpractice action and there is no such cause of action in Maryland. See Gurbani v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 237 Md, App. 261, 293 (2018); Hunter v. Bd. of Educ. of Montgomery Co., 292 Md, 481, 484 (1982). (©) Plaintiffs lack standing and have failed to meet the requirements for taxpayer standing. (4) Plaintiffs have failed to plead an actual, justiciable controversy. (©) The taxpayer standing doctrine does not open the door for a taxpayer to challenge any and every local government action. (© Plaintiff have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for their allegations of intentional misrepresentation, deceit, and other fraud-related allegations. (g) This Court, pursuant to Maryland’s Declaratory Judgment Act, has the discretionary authority to decline to hear this declaratory judgment action and, given the circumstances of this ease, this Court should exercise that authority and dismiss the First Amended ‘Complaint. (h) Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements required to obtain permanent injunctive relief. 7 MSDE acts under the leadership of the State Superintendent of Schools and guidance from the MSBE. See generally Md. Code, Education Art. §§ 2-102, 2-103, and 2-106. 2)3. BCBSC respectfully requests a hearing on its Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint WHEREFORE, BCBSC requests that this Court enter an Order granting its Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint with prejudice, and granting such other relief as this Court may deem proper under the circumstances. Dated: July 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted, ae Tierra R. Gregory WurrevorD, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP Attorney ID: 1212110356 Warren N, Weaver Attomey ID: 8212010510 wweaver@wtplaw.com BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF Tana Subar SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS. Attomey ID: 9712180218 200 East North Avenue, Suite 208 isubar@wtplaw.com Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Aaron A. Nichols (443) 642-4256 Attomey ID: 1412170271 anichols@wtplaw.com Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 347-8739 Counsel for Defendant Baltimore City Board of School CommissionersCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 HEI :BY CERTIFY that on this 5! day of July, 2022 a copy of the foregoing Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint, Memorandum in Support, Request for Hearing, and proposed Order were served via electronic and first-class mail, postage prepaid, on the following: 12346751 Scott H. Marder shmarder@tandllaw.com Maragaret L. Argent margent@tandllaw.com Francis R. Laws flaws@tandllaw.com Jennifer E. Ciarroeehi jeiarocchi@tandllaw.com Tuomas & LiBowrtz, P.A. 25 South Charles Street, Suite 2015 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 Attorneys for PlaintiffsJOVANI PATTERSON AND SHAWNDA YVETTE PATTERSON Plaintiff, or BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISIONERS, ef al. Defendants: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-22-000477 MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT ‘Warren N, Weaver Tana Subar ‘Aaron A. Nichols Whiteford, Taylor & Preston LLP Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 347-8739 and Tierra R. Gregory Office of Legal Counsel Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners 200 East North Avenue, Suite 208 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (443) 642-4256 Counsel for Defendant Baltimore City Board of School CommissionersIL. m. Vv. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT.. A. THE PLAINTIFFS B, THE “ENROLLMENT ALLEGATIONS” sss C. Tite “ACADEMIC ALLEGATIONS” D. THE ALLEGED “CULTURE OF FEAR AND COERCION” ss. FE. CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AND PURPORTE! VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL STATUTES... ‘THE SAFS SUMMARY REPORT” . G._ THe LAUNDRY-LiST OF DECLARATORY AND INJU THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING... LEGAL STANDARD. ARGUMENT. ‘THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION HAS PLENARY AUTHORITY OVER EDUCATION MATTERS; Anp Tals Court Is NOT THE APPROPRIATE FORUM To DECIDE THE EDUCATIONAL-RELATED MATTERS AT THE HEART OF PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT B. _PLAmntires’ Lawsur Is AN EDUCATION MALPRACTICE ACTION THAT IS BARRED IN MARYLAND C. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING AND HAVE FatLep TO MEeT THE REQUIREMENTS For TAXPAYER STANDIN i, Taxpayer Standing Generally...» ii, Plaintiffs Have Failed to Assert Factual Allegations of Current, Ongoing, or Imminent Ultra Vires or Illegal Acts Sufficient to Support Taxpayer Standing su. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a “Specific Injury”. 16 17 a 2 23 27 27 28 30 33H. CONCLUSION iv. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege A Sufficient Nexus Between the Challenged Acts, the Potential Pecuniary Injury and the Potential For the Remedy to Alleviate the Alleged Harm Incurred.. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD AN ACTUAL, JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY Tue “TAXPAYER STANDING” DOCTRINE Does Nor OPEN THE Door FoR A TAXPAYER TO CHALLENGE, ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTIO? PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED To MEET THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR THEIR ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT, INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, AND OTHER FRAUD-RELATED ALLEGATIONS... Tuts Court SHOULD DECLINE To HEAR THis DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION PLAINTIFFS HAVE Fat INJUNCTIVE RELIEF . LED TO STATE A CLAIM FOR ii 4 42 44 45 47Defendant Baltimore City Board of Schoo! Commissioners (“BCBSC"), through its undersigned counsel, submits this Memorandum of Law in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint filed against it and the Mayor and City Couneil of Baltimore City (the “City” and, together with BCBSC, “Defendants”) by Plaintiffs Jovani Patterson and Shawnda ‘Yvette Patterson (collectively “Plaintifis"). I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiffs, taxpayers in Baltimore City, are seemingly dissatisfied with how BCBSC operates the Baltimore City Public School System, commonly known as Baltimore City Public Schools (“City Schools” or the “School System”), and are improperly attempting to involve this Court to address theit overall dissatisfaction with the operation of the School System and to issue broad and sweeping declaratory and injunctive relief. On March 31, 2022, each of the Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint, and a supporting memorandum, detailing why Plaintiffs’ original Complaint should be dismissed. Thereafter, PlaintiflS requested, and were granted, a six-week extension of time (until June 3, 2022) to file an opposition to Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the original Complaint Instead of filing an opposition, Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on June 3, 2022 (the “Amended Complaint”), attempting to cure the fatal flaws of the original Complaint. As detailed further herein, the factual allegations that Plaintiffs added to their Amended Complaint do not remedy the fatal flaws of the original Complaint and do not give Plaintiffs taxpayer standing and, thus, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for many of the same reasons detailed in Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the original Complaint. In summary, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed for any or all of the following reasons:First, Plaintiffs” Amended Complaint should be dismissed because this Court is not the forum to decide the various educational-related matters that are at the heart of Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint. ‘The Maryland State Board of Education (“MSBE") “exereises broad dominion and control over the administration of the public-school system in Maryland.” Donton v. Montgomery Cnty. Public Schools, 460 Md. 62, 81 (2018). There is fully adequate state infrastructure, including the Maryland State Department of Education (“MSDE”),' to address the educational matters that are at the heart of Plaintifis’ lawsuit. Plaintiffs utterly ignore the broad plenary authority of the MSBE and the State’s ever-increasing oversight in connection with Maryland's 24 school systems,2 as well as federal oversight by the U.S, Department of Education. Education is a highly- regulated area in Maryland (and throughout the nation), and there is a complex state and federal agency scheme that Plaintiffs are choosing to ignore in running to this Court to air education- related grievances with Defendants, gleaned largely from Fox45 News articles and, more recently, from the findings of an investigative audit conducted by the Office of the Inspector General for Education (“OIGE”) regarding State Aid Enrollment Counts (dated April 20, 2022). As detailed further in the Argument section below, the OIGE’s investigative audit is but one example of the broader principle that this Court is not the appropriate forum for Plaintifts” grievances and this Court should not interfere with the existing statutory framework established to address these educational matters. | MSDE acts under the leadership of the State Superintendent of Schools and guidance from the MSBE. See generally Md. Code, Education Art. §§ 2-102, 2-103, and 2-106. C In June 2019, the Maryland Office of the Inspector General for Education (“OIGE”) was authorized by the General Assembly. (Chapter 771, Acts of 2019), And in February 2021, Maryland’s Accountability & Implementation Board (“AIB") was authorized by the General Assembly. (Chapter 36, Acts of 2021). See discussion below regarding the OIGE and AIB and their work. 2‘Second, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit, at its core, is really an education malpractice case, but there is no cognizable claim for educational negligence or malpractice in Maryland. See Gurbani v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 237 Md. App. 261, 295 (2018); Hunter v. Bd. of Edue. of Montgomery Co.,292 Md. 481, 484 (1982), Not only is education malpractice not a recognized cause of action in Maryland, but Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations that the state of student performance in City Schools is the result of or tied to alleged fraud and waste by BCBSC (Father than due to the systemic underfunding by the State and high concentration of students living in poverty) is entirely unsupported. The State's own Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education (“Kirwan Commission”) has acknowledged systemic underfunding and the high concentration of City Schools’ students living in poverty, which has only been exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite its funding challenges, City Schools continues to work with students and their families to provide every opportunity to complete school, pursue a career, and contribute productively to civic life, See Ex. V, Appendix A? ‘Third, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed because Plaintiffs lack standing and have failed to meet the requirements for “taxpayer standing.” As discussed further below, “{tJaxpayer standing is a common law standing doctrine that permits taxpayers to seek the aid of courts, exercising equity powers, to enjoin illegal and ultra vires acts of public officials where those acts are reasonably likely to result in pecuniary loss to the taxpayer.” Floyd v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 463 Ma. 226, 242 (2019). Hlere, Plaintiffs have not alleged illegal and ultra vires acts on the part of BCBSC, where those sets are reasonably likely to result in pecuniary loss to Plaintiffs, as taxpayers, Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to allege a violation that cannot be addressed by City Schools and its continuous efforts to improve enrollment, grading, and other : Unless otherwise noted, all exhibits cited herein are exhibits to the Amended Complaint. 3education-related practices, coupled with ever-increasing state and federal oversight. Not only have Plaintiffs failed to allege the first two elements of taxpayer standing, commonly referred to as the “illegal or ultra vires act” and the “specitic injury” elements, but Plaintiffs have also failed to allege a sufficient nexus between any alleged illegal or ultra vires acts, any potential pecuniary loss, and the potential for the requested relief to alleviate any harm incurred, Plaintiffs have improperly side-stepped MSDE and the other robust state and federal agencies authorized to deal with the matters about which they complain, Fourth, the Amended Complaint does not present an actual and justiciable controversy, which is an absolute prerequisite to bringing a declaratory judgment action. The Amended Complaint is devoid of any factual allegations that BCBSC is presently engaging in actions that are ultra vires and illegal. Moreover, the purpose of the ripeness doctrine “is to prevent premature judicial interference with government action and to avoid entanglement in abstract, poorly defined disputes.” Hickory Point P’ship v. Anne Arundel County, 316 Ma, 118, 130 (1989). City Schools has made significant process improvements and ongoing investments in recent years, many of which are expressly acknowledged in the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit Report of City Schools’ State Aid Enrollment, See Ex, V and Appendix A, pp. 2-4, Also, City Schools will continue to cooperate with MSDE to address the funding-based issues related to the OIGE’s audit report findings, considering the additional context provided in City Schools’ response. See Ex. V at Appendix A, p. 5. Plaintiffs are asking this Court to prematurely interfere with education-related matters, such as enrollment, grading, truancy, and attendance recording procedures, when these matters falls under the broad sweep of MSBE’s visitatorial power. This Court should avoid entanglement in these matters and improper judicial interference, and, thus, dismiss the Amended Complaint.Fifth, this Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint because the “taxpayer standing” doctrine does not open the door for a taxpayer to challenge any and every local government action, Plaintiffs rely heavily on the inappropriate conduct that City Schools identified in August 2019 at Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts (“APS”) regarding, inter alia, improper grade changing and students scheduled into classes that did not exist and/or that they did not attend. (See ‘Am. Compl. at $9 30, 34, 37-39, 75-77, 79, 88, 94, 95, 115, 118, 119). But it was City Schools itself that, in August 2019, identified potential irregularities in the manner that AFS was enrolling and graduating students and then launched a formal investigation in September 2019 by its Staff Investigations Unit (“SIU).* See Am. Compl. at Exhibit X (AFS Summary Report). Once the investigation was complete, City Schools took disciplinary action against those employees involved and implemented corrective actions to “further City Schools’ ongoing commitment to meet students’ individual needs and provide meaningful pathways to graduation and caret readiness.” See Am. Compl., Ex. X at p. 4. If this type of conduct could trigger “taxpayer standing,” it would deter public agencies from monitoring their own actions, and engaging in continuing improvement, Similarly, Plaintifis now rely heavily on the OIGE’s 4/2022 audit findings regarding enrollment, but seemingly ignore the OIGE’s acknowledgement that City ‘Schools has made substantial process improvements in recent years, and that most of the issues were previously self-reported to the MSDE. See Ex. V and Appendix A thereto. Pursuant to the point-in-time enrollment funding model that has been utilized throughout the State of Maryland for many years, state funding is based on enrollment as of September 30 each year; and this funding model effectively acknowledges significant fluctuations in student enrollment over the school 4 BCBSC takes the integrity of enrollment and grades extremely seriously. BCBSC has conducted various investigations regarding grading over the years and, taken together, its analysis and investigations show that City Schools remains committed in addressing any allegations of improper grade changing. 5year. See Ex. V and Appendix A, p. 1. If funding were fully reconciled for both entries and exits of students after September 30, City Schools could be eligible for additional funding. Id., ‘Appendix A at p. 2. Moreover, City Schools was not the only school system with findings identified by OIGE in terms of enrollment. , Plaintiffs have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for intentional misrepresentation (i.e. fraud), deceit, and the other fraud-type allegations that Plaintiffs continue to make. Plaintiffs’ conclusory allegations of “intentional misrepresentation,”® “deceit” and criminal conduct® are not based upon actual facts, but, instead, on a concoction of scandalous, inflammatory, and unsupported allegations. All such allegations must be dismissed or, at a minimum, stricken from the Amended Complaint.” Seventh, pursuant to Maryland's Declaratory Judgment Act, this Court has the discretionary authority to decline to hear this declaratory judgment action. This Court should ‘exercise that authority and dismiss the Complaint, given the circumstances of this case. Also, C The other three school systems that OIGE investigated regarding enrollment were Talbot County, Dorchester County, and Prince George's County. OIGE also conducted a statewide review of MSDE student enrollment data. See Ex. V at p. 5 (citing https//oige,maryland.gov/reports/) © See, eg., Am. Compl. at F944, 46, 72, 75, 79, 83, 84, and 122. 7 See, e.g., Am, Compl. at§ 42. 8 See, eg, Am. Compl. at fH 35, 52, 80, and 108. % ‘This Court, pursuant to Md, Rule 2-322(e), on its own initiative “at any time,” has the authority to order “any improper, immaterial, impertinent, or scandalous matter stricken from any pleading.” The conclusory allegations regarding criminal conduct are particularly improper, immaterial, impertinent, and scandalous in this civil action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Also, Plaintiffs’ allegation that the salary of the CEO of the School System is “exorbitant ... despite the abysmal performance of the School System” (Am, Compl. 20) is scandalous and improper matter. “‘Seandalous’ matter is that which improperly casts a derogatory light on someone ....” SC Wright and Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure (Civil) 34 § 1382 at 465 (2004); see also 2 Moore's Federal Practice § 12.37[3] at 12-131 ‘These scandalous and offensive allegations constitute an inappropriate attempt by Plaintiffs to abuse the Court's process to attack the Schoo! System and its CEO personally. BCBSC reserves the right to file a separate motion to strike in accordance with Md. Rule 2-322(e), although this Court may aet on “its own initiative.”declaratory relief should not be granted where it would not serve a useful purpose or terminate a controversy. See Liss v. Goodman, 224 Md. 173, 177 (1961). Here, declaratory relief would not serve a useful purpose, There is ample state and federal oversight to address these educational matters. City Schools has worked with MSDE to address funding issues where appropriate and warranted under the circumstances. See, e.g., Am. Compl. 21 (discussing return of funding); see also Ex. V at Appendix A (City Schools will continue to cooperate with MSDE to address the funding-based issues related to the [OIGE] report’s findings, considering the additional context provided in this response.”), Furthermore, because there is no actual and justiciable controversy alleged in the Amended Complaint, the requested declaratory relief would not terminate a “controversy.” Eighth, and finally, Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements required to obtain permanent injunctive relief. In sum, as detailed further below, Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint should be dismissed in its entirety. I. FACTS AS ALLEGED IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT A. THE PLAINTIFFS: ‘The only information provided in the Amended Complaint regarding Plaintiffs is that they own property in Baltimore City and “pay property and income taxes annually.” Am. Compl. $3 The Amended Complaint does not identify whether Plaintiffs have any first-hand knowledge of the allegations made in the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs rely heavily on news articles, particularly reporting conducted by Fox4S News and its lead reporter, Chris Papst, for “ProjectBaltimore,” Fox45"s purported investigation into Maryland’ public education system." Plaintiffs do not mention in the Amended Complaint whether (or how) they verified any of the purported facts taken from these written articles. For example, there is no indication in the Amended Complaint as to whether Plaintiffs, or their counsel, interviewed the persons identified by Fox45 News or reviewed any of the documents referenced in the nearly two dozen news articles that are attached as exhibits to the Amended Complaint. B. THe “ENROLLMENT ALLEGATIONS”! Pl Ts allege, in conclusory fashion, that City Schools “has a clear pattern” of submitting inaccurate student enrollment data, “resulting in the School System receiving excessive taxpayer- derived funding.” See, e.g, Am. Compl. {fj 32. Until the filing of its Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs allegations were based on allegations of “four known occasions” of alleged misreporting student enrollment numbers in City Schools” history. (Original Compl. ¥ 23). Plaintiffs amended their Complaint primarily to include the findings of the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit!? regarding enrollment and two Fox45 News articles from May 2022 regarding the report cards of two students at Pimlico Elementary/Middle Schools.'* © Over half of the 42 exhibits attached to the Amended Complaint are news articles; and of the news articles, 14 are authored by Mr, Papst of Fox45 1 "The allegations identified in this Section ILB. collectively will be referred to herein as the “Enrollment Allegations.” ‘See, e.g,, Am. Compl. at ff |, 22-28, 32-35, 43, 54, 69-74, 93, and 132. & See, e.g, Am, Compl, at § 40 and Ex. BB (regarding Pimlico first grader Darian Flood); and Am, Compl. at $41 and Ex. CC (regarding Pimlico kindergartener Jaleel Williams). These Fox4S News articles claim that City Schools failed to make available private nurses for the Pimlico students Darian Flood and Jaleel Williams. There is, however, a nursing shortage nationwide, and City Schools has made available educational options to student that require private duty nurses when none are available. See Ex, BB (cegarding Statement from City Schools); and Ex. CC (noting that “[wJhen students cannot attend in-person learning due to medical requirements, City Schools provides virtual learning options or access to its Home and Hospital Program.”),First, PlaintiffS allege that in 2014, City Schools “overreported its enrollment data by 978 students” and, therefore, “was required to retumn $2.9 million in funding from Baltimore City.”"" ‘Am. Compl. 19. Second, Plaintiffs allege that in 2016, City Schools misreported its enrollment data by 1,900 students." Jd. Third, Plaintiffs make allegations regarding Claremont Middle/High ‘School (“Claremont”) and “five deceased students” being enrolled at the school back in 2016, based on Fox45 reporting from a former principal, Angel Lewis. See Am. Compl. 31 and Ex. Y. Ms. Lewis is presently pursuing a whistleblower case against BCBSC, even though a hearing examiner already rejected Ms. Lewis’ claims that her non-renewal was retaliatory and found that City Schools produced significant, competent, persuasive, and consistent evidence that the non- renewal was for legitimate, non-retaliatory reasons. Aftera hearing lasting seven days, the hearing examiner found that City Schools proved that Ms. Lewis was a poor performing employee who failed to meet expectations for a principal in City Schools. Ms. Lewis’ case is pending in this Court (Case No. 24-C-1804157) and is scheduled for trial at the end of July 2022. See Am. Compl. at Ex. Y. Fourth, Plaintiffs highlight “media reports” from 2021 identifying “fraud in reporting student enrollment numbers” at Augusta Fells Savage Institute of Visual Arts (“AES”), a public school within the School System. See Am. Compl. {| 29. Plaintifff allege that the School System “The Baltimore Sun article that Plaintiffs cite regarding this instance of “overreporting” points out that it was the City Schools’ then-CEO, Gregory Thornton, who launched the internal investigation into student rolls “after he noticed discrepancies between attendance data and what he saw when he visited schools.” See Am, Compl, at Ex. U. The “overreporting” in 2014 that Plaintiffs cite to was addressed by City Schools in collaboration with MSDE. 1S Plaintiffs allege that this instance in 2016 required City Schools to return “$25 million in city funds” (Am, Compl. 421), but the news article that they cite did not so state. Instead, that article stated that State funding for City Schools would decline by about $25 million under the Governor's proposed budget “because the student population dropped and other factors, including a formula that measures an area’s wealth.” (See Am, Compl. at EX. DD),conducted “a lengthy investigation” and at the conclusion of the investigation identified “at least 69 potentially current instances of enrollment recordkeeping violations involving 52 students.” ‘Am. Compl. {30 (emphasis in original). Exhibit X to the Amended Complaint is a “Summary Report” (the “AFS Summary Report”) regarding the City Schools’ findings, as well as the remedial and preventative actions taken by City Schools. The AFS Summary Report reveals that the conduct at AFS spanned the course of four school years. See Ex. X, p.3 (noting that it was “during the period from the 2016-2017 school year through the 2019-2020 school year, where suspicious actions by AFS staff resulted in questionable per-pupil funding for AFS that could not be documented or validated”). 1d. With regard to the financial “injury” purportedly suffered by taxpayers and caused by the conduct at AFS,"° the Amended Complaint alleges that said conduct, which spanned four school years at APS, “resulted in approximately $180,000 [sic] in improperly allocated taxpayer funds,” i.e, 100 students times $18,000 per student, (Am, Compl. $35). But this Court, for purposes of the instant Motion to Dismiss, is allowed to credit the exhibit, the AFS Summary Report (Exhibit X), upon which Plaintiffs rely, over any conflicting allegation in the Amended Complaint. The 'AFS Summary Report references “69 instances involving 52 students, during the period from the 2016-2017 schoo! year through the 2019-2020 school year, where suspicious actions by AFS staff resulted in questionable per-pupil funding for AES that could not be documented or validated.”"” important to note that it was City Schools’ own, ‘Am. Compl. at Ex. X, p. 3. Moreover, it investigation that identified the issues at AFS, not media reports. City Schools self-reported the ' The allegations regarding AFS are repeated over-and-over-again throughout the Amended Complaint. See, e.g,, Am. Compl. ff 34, 75, 76, 77, 83, 88, 94, 122. 17 The $18,000 per student figure that Plaintiffs allege is inaccurate, but for purposes of the instant Motion only BCBSC assumes the truth of ths figure. 10issues and implemented corrective actions to address the misconduct at AFS. Also, City Schools has offered to work with MSDE regarding any return of funding for ineligible students. See ia. Plaintiffs amended their Complaint to include the findings of the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit. See, e.g, Am. Compl. at {fj 1, 22-28, 32-35, 43, 54, 69-74, 93, and 132; and Exhibit V. As noted above, City Schools was one of four local educational agencies (“LEAs”) that OIGE chose to investigate for potential enrollment irregularities pertaining to state ai funding." See Ex. Vat p.2. The Audit Report detailed the methodology that OIGE employed and the findings identified during the investigative audit, The OIGE discovered 928 instances of students who were deemed eligible for state aid funding by City Schools but had not met the attendance or enrollment requirements in COMAR. These 928 instances represent just 0.3% of City Schools’ total students eligible for state funding over the OIGE’s five-year review period (2016-17 through 2020-21 school years). See Ex. V at Appendix A. Most of these instances were previously reported in enrollment data that City Schools regularly shares with MSDE, under the State’s long-standing funding formula.’ 18 ‘The OIGE also conducted a statewide review of MSDE student enrotiment data, See Ex. V at p. 5 (citing report at _https://oige.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2022/04/22-000 |-A-OIGE- Investigative-Audit-Final-Report-MSDE-04202022. pdf), The point-in-time funding model utilized by MSDE acknowledges significant fluctuations in enrollment counts. Id. Especially in an urban school system like City Schools, with a highly mobile population, more students typically enter the school system after the effective date of the State's enrollment ‘count than those who exit. As noted above, if funding were fully reconciled for both entries and exits of students after September 30, City Schools likely would be eligible for additional funding, See Ex. V at ‘Appendix A, pp. I-2. MSDE has noted that OIGE’s finding and its underlying analysis “fail to account for ‘changes in enrollment coding that would result in a student previously identified as ineligible being subsequently identified as eligible.” See MSBE’s response dated April 18, 2022 to OIGE’s Investigative ‘Audit (#22-0001-A) regarding MSDE’s State Aid Enrollment Counts: hitps://oige, marvland.goviwp- content/uploadsisites/| 8/2022/04/22-0001-A-OIGE-Investigative-Audit-Final-Report-MSDE-. 04202022. pdf. WW‘The OIGE noted that City Schools “has instituted effective centralized processes” in its due diligence tracking of student enrollment for funding eligibility purposes. See Ex. V. The OIGE further acknowledged that City Schools’ “rigorous” protocols “resulted in decreased instances of subsequently reported ineligibilities during [OIGE’s five-year] review period,” except for the 2020-2021 school year when the COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges. See id Despite the State’s long-standing legacy of systemic underfunding and the limited access at the school level to the intensive resources that are required to support the enrollment reporting process, City Schools “compares favorably to other LEAs reviewed” by the OIGE. See id OIGE made three recommendations “to assist [City Schools] in improving their ability to accurately report enrollment counts to MSDE” (see idl) and City Schools provided its responses to OIGE, which included additional context for the OIGE’s findings, systemic improvements already implemented, and an estimated date of full implementation of additional improvements, including those recommended by the OIGE. See Ex. V at Appendix A. Below is a summary overview of several of the process improvements and ongoing investments that City Schools has made in recent years, many of which are expressly acknowledged in the OIGE audit report: © Enrollment Verification. Beginning in the 2016-17 school year, City Schools? Office of Achievement and Accountability has led a thorough enrollment verification process annually. (See Ev. V at Appx. A, p. 3 for further details). © Continuous Record Error Follow-Up with Schools, Prior to the pandemic, City Schools identified schools that had a minimum of 3-5 continuous record ‘errors, and principals received an email requiring a corrective action plan. In SY 2021-22, City Schools prioritized schools with 20 or more continuous record errors, (See id.) «Decline of Unsubmitted Attendance. City Schools has worked with schools to make significant reductions to unsubmitted attendance in recent years (from 3.4% in SY 2015-16 to 0.5% in SY 2021-22). The Attendance team works: directly with schools to support the weekly monitoring and improvement of 12unsubmitted attendance in schools, which has resulted in fewer continuous record errors in reported attendance. (See id.) © Withdrawal Due Diligence Documentation in Infinite Campus. Beginning in SY 2018-19, City Schools made it mandatory to log withdrawal requests and documentation in Infinite Campus, the student information system.” (See id.) ‘© Supports to Schools around Re-Engagement Efforts. City Schools, through, its Re-Engagement Center, has continued to refine and enhance its re- engagement efforts as part of its commitment to making every effort to educate all students including those who stop attending or otherwise disengage from education for a variety of reasons. (See Ev. V at Appx. A, pp. 3-4 for further details). + Supports to Schools around Attendance. Within City Schools" central office, ‘support has increased over the last few years for attendance monitoring and re- engagement of students with consecutive absences. (See Ev. V at Appx. A, p. 4 for further details). City Schools’ response to this OIGE audit also detailed the systemic improvements being mplemented in response to OIGE’s three specific recommendations. See Ex. V at Appendix A, pp. 5-6, OIGE found that City Schools’ detailed responses to the OIGE’s recommendations indicate “a commitment to improving processes and procedures that will increase the accuracy of future enrollment counts.” See Ex. V at Appendix B C. THE “ACADEMIC ALLEGATIONS” Plaintiffs allege that “throughout” City Schools “the prevalence of grade inflation... has led to the widespread promotion of students to the next grade level who have not met the requirements of their current grade level.”*" Am, Compl. ¢ 36. To support these conclusory ® City Schools provides a Withdrawal Directions and Due Diligence Requirements document to all schools which outlines a specific process for schools and the Chief of Schools Office to determine when and how a student will be withdrawn aftera student has been absent for more than fen consecutive days and after re-engagement procedures have been attempted and logged into Infinite Campus. See Ex. V at pp. 2 and 8. 2 The allegations identified in this Section II.C. collectively will be referred to herein as the “Academic Allegations.” Ballegations regarding “widespread” “illegal practices” with regard to grade promotion, Plaintiffs rely on the same two schools identified above: AFS and Claremont, Plaintiffs cite to a March 1, 2021 Fox4S article featuring a parent of an AFS student. See Am. Compl. at § 37 (citing Ex. AA), That parent complained that she was not notified that her son “passed three classes and failed 22, and was late or absent from school on 272 days of the first three years of attendance” and, as a result, would not be graduating. Am, Compl. $37. This is the only allegation in the Amended Complaint of City Schools’ alleged “failure to notify." See Am. Compl. 117. Nonetheless, Plaintiffs allege, in conclusory fashion, a system-wide “pattern or practice of failing to follow” notification protocols and “falsifying student records” “to cover up their failures.” Am. Compl. 118. Further, the Amended Complaint notes that the AES Summary Report “revealed that 15 students were improperly given passing grades without actually meeting the credit requirements” and that “school administrators falsified enrollment records to indicate that students were enrolled in classes that did not exist, or which they did not attend”. Am. Compl. 38. The AFS Summary Report also revealed that AFS “operated credit recovery programs that did not comply with the School System requirements.” Id, at ]39, These allegations relate to the 2016-2017 through 2019- 2020 schoo! years, and City Schools has addressed these issues, Am. Compl. at Ex. X, p. 3 Plaintiffs next rely on a Fox45 News article that recounts an interview of Claremont’s former principal, Angel Lewis, See Am. Compl, at Ex. Y. As noted above, Ms. Lewis is currently pursuing a whistleblower case against BCBSC. See id Plaintiffs repeat the article's 7 Interestingly, Plaintiffs have chosen to stick their heads in the sand and not include in their ‘Amended Complaint the fact that City Schools dic notify this parent. Had Plaintiffs visited the City ‘Schools’ website for accurate information, they would have leamed the truth, See March 2, 2021 entry on City Schools’ website: Selling _the Record Straight _| Baltimore _City Public _Sehools (baltimorecityschools.org) 14characterization of Ms. Lewis’ claims that in 2016, “Claremont's administrators were falsifying student records to push ineligible students through to graduation, forcing students to take classes swith unqualified and untrained teachers, and depriving students of basic courses they needed to eam required graduation credits, including math and science.” Am. Compl. {| 44. No facts are provided in support of Ms. Lewis" allegations.” Plaintiffs then make an unsupported and conclusory leap that “[bJased on the foregoing, upon information and belief, this illegal and ultra vires misconduct is occurring at other Baltimore City Public Schools.” * Am. Compl. § 119 (emphasis added), But, as detailed below, such conclusory allegations are not sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss. D. THE ALLEGED “CULTURE OF FEAR AND COERCION” Based on the alleged improper non-renewal of Ms. Lewis contract in 2016, which is the subject of a pending lawsuit, Plaintiffs allege that City Schools “has created a culture of fear and coercion to prevent [City Schools] employees from disclosing this misconduct.” Am. Compl. 132. Yet Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts supporting a purported “culture of fear and coercion” in the School System or any other efforts being made by the School System to suppress potential whistleblowers. PlaintifiS* reliance on a Fox45 News article about ome former principal's unproven allegations at one City School (Claremont) regarding circumstances existing approximately six years ago is wholly insufficient to support & conclusory allegation of a “culture of fear and coercion.” Plaintiffs, again, have chosen to stick their heads in the sand and not include in their Amended Complaint the fact that Ms. Lewis raised concems related to her Claremont allegations that were investigated by City Schools. % “Like with the Enrollment Allegations, Plaintiffs restate and rephrase over-and-over-again the ‘Academic Allegations to create the appearance of a broader applicability to City Schools as a whole. See, e-g., Am. Compl. $9 78, 94, 95, 117, 118, 119, 122. 15E, CRIMINAL ALLEGATIONS AND PURPORTED VIOLATIONS OF CIVIL STATUTES ‘While Plaintiffs have removed from their Complaint their wholly unfounded allegations of “criminal racketeering,” “mail fraud,” “theft,” “embezzlement,” “conspiracy to commit fraud,” and “widespread conspiracy to fraudulently report student enrollment data,” Plaintiffs continue to allege, in conclusory fashion, violation of criminal law;’* “widespread” and “intentional” “mistepresentations” by City Schools; and that it “actively conceals its misconduct”;?* engages in “legal conduct”; resulting in “systemic and continuous statutory and regulatory violations.” See, eg, Am. Compl. 32, 44, 46, 52, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, and 122. Plaintiffs allege violations of criminal law and fraudulent conduct by BCBSC and the School System as a whole. Stated differently, Plaintifts seek extraordinary system-wide relief, including an “independent monitoring system” (see, e.g, Am. Compl. § 124), but yet, they have failed to allege misconduct warranting such extraordinary system-wide relief. Plaintiffs brazenly and flippantly assert criminal allegations against City Schools as a whole. Plaintiffs further allege that City Schools violated a number of civil statutes and regulations?’ But, even if all of the allegations were all true (which they are not), these statutes 2 Asnoted herein, all of the remaining allegations regarding alleged violations of eriminal law should be stricken from the Amended Complaint pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(e). They are immaterial and inflammatory in this civil lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. These allegations are also improper, impertinent, and scandalous matter. bak Plaintiffs point to a records request that Fox4S News made in 2017 under the Maryland Public Information Act (*MPIA") regarding City Schools’ internal investigation into allegations of grade changing. (See Am. Compl. 4 43). Fox45 challenged the legal position that BCBSC took when legitimately declined the MPIA request for a number of specified reasons, and the parties correctly ‘addressed the matter in court. While the court (Judge Hong presiding) disagreed with BCBSC’s position and ordered the production of documents to Fox45 News, this is not “evidence” of some long-standing “history” of concealment or fraud within the School System, as Plaintiffs suggest. As detailed further below, these massive, conclusory, and baseless leaps are not sufficient to withstand this motion to dismiss. 2” plaintiffs allege City Schools failed to raise the achievement level in violation of Section 4-303 of the Education Article; failed to properly calculate its annual budget and falsified student enrollment data in violation of Education Article Sections S-101(bX1), 5-102, 5-104, 5-202, 4-315(a), 4-316 and 5- 16and regulations do not provide Plaintiffs with a private cause of action against Defendants. Under Maryland law, the MSBE has broad authority to decide such education-related matters and disputes, with input and support from the State Superintendent and MSDE. See, e.g., Md. Code, Educ, Art. § 2-205. F. THe “AFS SumMARY REPORT” ‘The AFS Summary Report (Am, Compl. at Ex. X) is dated August 2021 and details steps taken by City Schools both before and after the investigation regarding AFS to remedy the issues detailed therein. Shortly before SIU’s formal investigation began, City Schools updated grading policies “to strengthen grading guidance and practice,” including “protocols for reviewing requests for grade changes.” See Ex. X, p. 4. While the investigation was pending, City Schools took several steps to address potential root causes of the allegatio «August 2019 — City Schools staff noted grading concems at AFS during summer graduation, and a small number of students were not allowed to graduate, Those Students received individual action plans to provide a pathway to complete graduation requirements. © September 2019 — AFS’s principal and assistant principal were placed on ‘administrative leave pending the results of the investigation. A managing assistant principal was identified for the remainder of the 2019-2020 school year. ‘© Spring 2020 — With central office support, AES conducted a review of individual student transcripts, starting with seniors. Families received personalized communication - mailed letters and phone calls — with updates on student progress toward graduation, The letters were sent before summer school so that students could enroll in summer school if necessary. If City Schools identified concerns, staff offered parent conferences to discuss @ timeline and plan for graduation. 202(4\ 1}{ii) and COMAR 13A02.06,02(B\(11)-(12), 13A.02.06.08, and 13A.02.06.03; failed to monitor student attendance in violation of Education Article Sections 7-301, 7-302, COMAR 13A.08.01.05, 13A,08.02,01,.03,.07,.09, and .27; Administrative Regulation JEA RA (Compulsory Attendance); and failed to adhere to the required standards for student promotion, retention, and graduation in violation of Education Article Sections 7-205, COMAR 12A.03.02.07, COMAR 12A.03.02.04, Board Policy IKEB (Graduation Standards), and Administrative Regulation IKEA-RA (Promotion Acceleration and Retention). See, e.g,, Am. Compl. at ff] 123-126 W© Summer 2020 - City Schools appointed an experienced and transformational principal at AFS. Under this new leadership, AFS continues to review student transcripts and directly contact students’ parents with concerns. Ex. X, p. 1. Importantly, City Schools offered to work with MSDE to undertake appropriate funding reconciliation, as necessary, based on the results of the SIU"s formal investigation. See Ex. X, p.3. City Schools also coordinated its investigation of AFS with the OIGE* Bx. X, p. 2. ‘The AFS Summary Report is attached to and serves as an integral foundation of the ‘Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs rely on the AFS Summary Report in an effort to support their theory of “widespread” and “intentional misrepresentation” and criminal acts. Despite Plaintiffs’ unfettered reliance on it, Plaintiffs noticeably fails to acknowledge the AFS Summary Report in its entirety and, instead, simply cite to selective excerpts favorable to their wanted theories.” The AFS Summary Report details that the irregularities in the manner that AFS was enrolling and graduating students were discovered “as part of City Schools’ protocols for monitoring compliance with graduation requirements” and, as a result, City Schools launched “a formal investigation” in September 2019. See Am, Compl. at Ex. X, p. 1, ‘The investigation was conducted by City Schools’ Staff Investigation Unit (“SIU”) in the Department of Fair Practices.”” Id. 2% “The OIGE was provided a copy of the AFS Summary Report before it was published to the public. Ex. Xp. 2. 2% “When the plaintiff attaches or incorporates a document upon which his claim is based, or when the complaint otherwise shows that the plaintiff has adopted the contents of the document, crediting the document over conflicting allegations in the complaint is proper.” See Goines v. Valley Cony. Servs. Bd., 822 F.3d 159, 167 (4th Cir. 2016). “Accordingly, if a breach-of-contract plaintiff alleges a failure to perform an act required by the contract, the contract’s description of the defendant's duties will prevail over the plaintifP's contrary characterization.” Id. at 166. 2 ‘The Staff Investigations Unit investigates claims of employee misconduct. See BCBSC Policy EAB and Administrative Regulation EAB-RA; see also https:/www, baltimorecityschools.org/staff- investigations. 18As part of its investigation, the SIU reviewed “numerous documents, emails, and material from hundreds of student records from the 2016-2017 school year through the 2019-2020 school year, ag well as analysis of information from City Schools’ student information systems.” Ex. X, p. 1. The SIU also interviewed “[mJore than 30 staff,” and “[mJany of the interviews were conducted on multiple days over the course of mu le months.” Ex. X, p. 1. This process prompted the implementation of numerous additional remedial and preventative actions taken by City Schools, on top of existing policies and procedures, which, at the time of the AFS Summary Report, had been recently updated and revamped. Jd. The SIU investigation “substantiated findings of inappropriate conduct by four staff members.” Jd., pp. 1-2. At the time the AFS Summary Report was issued, three of the employees “[w]ere no longer employed by City Schools, and administrative proceedings [were] pending with respect to the fourth.” Id. The AFS Summary Report also details that “in addition to City Schools’ enrollment verification processes that include school scheduling reviews, roster validation by schools, and technical assistance for schools, City Schools’ enrollment is also verified by the Maryland State Department of Education (*MSDE").” Ex. X, p. 3. Indeed, City Schools’ “enrollment is verified through biannual enrollment audits conducted by MSDE, which serve as the state authority on funding status.” Id. City Schools is working with MSDE to determine whether funding needs to be reconciled in light of its internal investigation findings regarding APS. See Ex. X, p. 3. In May 2019, shortly before City Schools” internal investigation began, the School Board strengthened “grading guidance and practices” and implemented a technology platform for grade change requests, which permits better “tracking and monitoring” of grade changes, an “auditing process” for historical grades, and oversight to ensure that “no single staff person is solely responsible for any aspect of the grading entry or review process.” Additional central office staf? 19positions have been added that will “support, review and audit school grading practices.” City Schools has also incorporated a series of enhancements into its enrollment and scheduling protocols, including (i) school scheduling reviews “at the beginning of the school year to help censure students are fully scheduled consistent with their grade level,” (ii) “enrollment verification and roster validation by central office and school leaders,” (iii) “reviews of student transcripts to validate graduation status and ensure students are on track to graduate,” and (jv) “guidance to school leaders regarding student withdrawals, with review and approval by central office.” See Ex. X at p. 4, Based on “lessons learned” from AFS and a thorough review of practices and protocols, City Schools released additional guidance on credit recovery, with further enhancements for summer school. For example, the Academics Office! now reviews each school’s “credit recovery program, courses, and certification status of teachers.” Am, Compl. at Ex. X, pp. 4-5. The AFS Summary Report concluded as follows: ‘The grading, enrollment, scheduling, and credit recovery issues identified through this thorough investigation represent a coordinated scheme by a small number of APS staff to circumvent the extensive safeguards and monitoring that City Schools had in place, as well as the enrollment verification audits conducted by MSDE. While the unusual, sophisticated, and intentional nature of this scheme initially escaped detection, it was City Schools’ own protocols that ultimately exposed the grading irregularities that triggered this investigation. Moreover, through this investigation, City Schools has identified a series of further precautions against the sort of deliberate efforts that individual AFS staff utilized to thwart established protocols. These enhancements will further City Schools’ ongoing commitment to meet students’ individual needs and provide meaningful pathways to graduation and career readiness. Am. Compl. at Ex. X, p. 42 3 "The Academic Office develops and coordinates resources to ensure students receive rigorous, engaging instruction tailored to their individual needs and preparing them for success through the grades and after high schoo! graduation. 2 Notably, Plaintiffs do not attack as insufficient or ineffective any of the systemic improvements implemented by City Schools identified in the AFS Summary Report. 20G. THE LAUNDRY-LIST OF DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE SEEKING Plaintiffs have taken a “kitchen-sink” approach and are asking this Court to declare and order, in the absence of an actual and justiciable controversy, the following broad and sweeping relief: Declare that School Board is in violation of § 4-303 of the Education Article; (Am. Compl. § 123) Order compliance with § 4-303 of the Education Article and compel the Schoo! Board and the City to institute policies and procedures to attain and maintain compliance, and to develop and maintain an independent monitoring system to censure future compliance; (Am. Compl. 123) Declare that Defendants are in violation of Education Article §§ 5-101(b)(1), 5~ 102, 5-104, 5-202, 4-315(a), 4-316 and 5-202(d)(1)(i) and COMAR 13A02,06.02(B)(11)-(12), 13A.02.06.08 and 13A.02.06.03; (Am. Compl. 124) Order compliance with Education Article §§ 5-101(b)(1), 5-102, 5-104, 5-202, 4-315(a), 4-316 and 5-202(d\1)Gi) and COMAR 13A02.06.02(8)(11)-(12), 1302.06.08 and 13A.02,06.03, and order Defendants to institute policies and procedures to attain and maintain compliance, and to develop and maintain an independent monitoring system to ensure future compliance; (Am. Compl. 125) Declare that Defendants are in violation of Education Article §§ 7-301 and 7- 302, COMAR 13A.08.01.05, 13A.08.02.01,.03,.07,.09, and .27 and BCBSC ‘Administrative Regulation JEA-RA (Compulsory Attendance); (Am. Compl. § 125) Order compliance with Education Article §§ 7-301 and 7-302, COMAR 13A.08.01.05, 13A.08.02.01,,03,.07,.09, and .27 and BCBSC Administrative Regulation JEA-RA (Compulsory Attendance), and order Defendants to institute policies and procedures to attain and maintain compliance, and to develop and maintain an independent monitoring system to ensure future compliance; (Am. Compl. 125) Declare that Defendants are in violation of Education Article § 7-205, COMAR 12A,03.02.07, COMAR 12A.03.02.04, BCBSC Administrative Regulation, IKEA-RA (Promotion, Acceleration, and Retention (Grades K. through 12)), and BCBSC Policy IKEB (Graduation Standards); (Am, Compl. § 126) 2© Order compliance with Education Article § 7-205, COMAR 12A. 03.02.07, COMAR 12A.03.02.04, BCBSC Administrative Regulation IKEA-RA (Promotion, Acceleration, and Retention (Grades K through 12)), and BCBSC Policy IKEB (Graduation Standards), and order Defendants to institute policies and procedures to attain and maintain compliance, and to develop and maintain an independent monitoring system to ensure future compliance; (Am. Compl. § 126) © Order Defendants to follow their own procedures for identifying, notifying parents of, and providing support services to truant students and students in danger of failing/not graduating; (Am. Compl. ¥ 127) + Otder Defendants to eliminate illegal and lira vires grade inflation and to follow their own policies for promoting students to the next grade level, including identifying students who are in danger of failing to meet promotion standards, timely notifying parents and guardians, and providing the intervention services needed to held students succeed at each grade level; (Am. Compl. § 128) © Order that the City not fund the School Board “based on misrepresented or inaccurate enrollment data” and to implement procedures to ensure that the enrollment data is accurate. (Am. Compl. § 129). As detailed in the Argument section below, the Amended Complaint fails as a matter of law and, thus, this Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint. WI. LEGALSTANDARD Pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(b), a complaint may be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Indeed, dismissal of complaint is appropriate “when the complaint does not disclose, on its face, a legally sufficient cause of action.” Campbell v. Cushwa, 133 Md. App. 519, 534 (2000); see also Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 244 (4th Cir, 1999) (dismissal is appropriate if, “after accepting all well-pleaded allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true and drawing all reasonable factual inferences from those facts in the plaintiff's favor, it appears certain that the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts in support of his claim entitling him to relief. 22In this regard, the plaintiff “must allege facts with specificity” because “bald assertions and conclusory statements will not suffice.” Cushwa, 133 Md. App. at $34 (modifications omitted), Accordingly, “dismissal is proper when the facts and allegations, even if proven, nonetheless fail to afford reliefto the plaintiff.” Jd, (quotation marks omitted), At the motion to dismiss phase, the Court may also disregard mere “conclusions of the pleader” because “naked adjectival or adverbial words, phrases or expressions can never take the place of facts” and are, therefore, inadequate to state a valid cause of action, Nigido v. First National Bank of Baltimore, 264 Md. 702 (1972) (affirming dismissal of complaint for failure to state a claim). Moreover, “any ambiguity or uncertainty in the allegations bearing on whether the complaint states a cause of action must be construed against the pleader.” Harris v. McKenzie, 241 Md. App. 672, 678 (2019) (citation omitted), To support an assertion of fraud, also known as “intentional misrepresentation,” “particular are sufficient.” Juiliano v. Lion's Manor facts must be stated,” and “no mere allegations Nursing Home, 62 Md. App. 145, 154, 488 A.2d 538, 543 (1985) (citing Wooddy v. Wooddy, 256 Mad. 440, 451, 261 A.2d 486 (1970); Jenifer v. Kincaid, 191 Md. 120, 131, 9 A.2d 765 (1948). IV. ARGUMENT A. THE MARYLAND STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION HAS PLENARY AUTHORITY OVER EDUCATION MATTERS; AND THIS CouRT Is Not THE APPROPRIATE FORUM TO DECIDE THE EDUCATIONAL-RELATED MATTERS AT THE HEART OF THE PLAINTIFFS’ LAWSUIT, ‘The Amended Complaint should be dismissed because this Court is not the appropriate forum to decide the educational-related matters that are at the heart of the Amended Complaint. ‘The MSBE “exercises broad dominion and control over the administration of the public-school system in Maryland.” Donion v. Montgomery Cnty, Public Schools, 460 Md. 62, 81 (2018). InBoard of Education of Prince George’s County v. Waeldner, 298 Md, 354, 359-60 (1984), the Court of Appeals explained: Our cases have long made clear that the State Board has very broad statutory authority over the administration of the public school system in this State. Under [Educ.] § 2-205(g)(2) . . ., the State Board is directed to “exercise general control and supervision over the public schools and educational interests of this State.” [Educ. §] 2-205(b) empowers the State Board to “{d]etermine the elementary and secondary educational policies of this State”; § 2-205(c) directs the State Board to “adopt bylaws, rules, and regulations for the administration of the public schools.” (Educ. §] 2-205(e) provides that the State Board “shall explain the true intent and meaning of the provisions of ... [the Education Article]... within its jurisdiction”; the same subsection mandates that the State Board “shall decide all controversies and disputes under these provisions” and further states that “{t]he decision of the Board is final.” ‘The Court of Appeals in Waeldner went on to further describe the comprehensive character and broad sweep of MSBE’s visitatorial power: The totality of these provisions has been described as a visitatorial power of such comprehensive character as to invest the State Board with the last word on any matter concerning educational policy or the administration of the system of public education. . . , The broad sweep of the State Board's visitatorial power has been consistently recognized and applied since the principle was first enunciated in 1879 in Wiley v. School Comm'rs, 51 Mi. 401. ... The power of visitation vested in the State Board is one of general control and supervision; it authorizes the State Board to superintend the activities of the local boards of education to keep them within the legitimate sphere of their operations, and whenever a controversy or dispute arises involving the educational policy or proper administration of the public school system of the State... Id, at 360-61 There is fully adequate state infrastructure through, for example, the MSDE, as well as the OIGE and the AIB,2? to address issues like those raised in the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs are 3 The Accountability & Implementation Board was authorized, in February 2021, by the Maryland General Assembly as an independent unit of State government (Chapter 36, Acts of 2021). The AIB, constituting seven members appointed by the Governor, is charged with developing a Comprehensive Implementation Plan for the Blueprint for Maryland’s Future, ‘The Blueprint consists of those policies and 24largely ignoring the broad plenary authority of the MSDE and its oversight in connection with Maryland’s 24 school systems, Education is a highly-regulated area in Maryland, and there is a complex agency scheme that Plaintiffs are choosing to ignore in running to this Court to air their purported grievances with Defendants, largely based on Fox45 News articles. City Schools is subject to internal and external audits as an essential component of continuous improvement in management practices. One of those audits is the audit conducted by the State’s Office of Legislative Audits. As noted above, other audits include those undertaken by the MSDE, including the enrollment and funding audits referenced in Exhibit X to Plaintiffs’ Amended Complaint, See Ex. X, p. 3. City Schools conduets ongoing review of processes and practices to censure that the public can have confidence that resources are being deployed efficiently and effectively to improve outcomes for Baltimore's school children. See, e.g., Am. Compl. at Ex. X, p. 2; see also Ex. U; and Ex. FP, ‘As noted above, Plaintiffs amended their allegations to include the OIGE’s recent April 2022 investigative audit report on City Schools’ state aid enrollment counts and its findings. See, eg, Am. Compl. at $f 1, 22-28, 32-35, 43, 54, 69-74, 93, and 132; and Ex. V. Plaintiffs’ own ‘amendments rely on yet another aspect of the robust state infrastructure in place to address matters accountability requirements recommended by the Commission on Innovation and Excellence in Education Further, every unit of government responsible for implementing any part of the Blueprint for Maryland’ Future, including each local school board, is required to submit its own implementation plan to the AIB for approval. The MSBE may withhold funding to any agency without an approved implementation plan. 6M The Office of Legislative Audits is part of the Maryland General Assembly’s Department of Legislative Services, and its mission is to serve the General Assembly and the taxpayers of Maryland by providing independent and objective audits and evaluations of State government agencies and all local school systems. The audits assist the General Assembly in its oversight responsibilities and lead to improved performance throughout State government agencies and all local school systems. 25of alleged educational fraud, waste, or abuse.** In the educational realm, courts are not in the business of investigating concerns or complaints regarding instances of fraud, waste, or abuse involving the use of public funds, There is an adequate state infrastructure in place to address the alleged conduct that PlaintiffS challenge, and Plaintiffs are improperly asking this Court to act in an area where there are independent entities within the government of the State of Maryland that are already tasked with addressing these types of issues. Moreover, the existing statutory framework does not provide Plaintifts with any private cause of action, As noted above, the MSBE has broad authority to decide such education-related matters and disputes, with input and support from the State Superintendent and MSDE. See, e.g, Md. Code, Educ. Art. § 2-205. Lastly, itis worth noting that there is a real possibility of conflicting outcomes if the instant action is allowed to proceed forward. For example, the pending lawsuit filed by Angel Lewis well before the instant lawsuit was filed by Plaintiffs involves conduct at Claremont, and the instant suit also seeks to rely on much of the same alleged conduct at Claremont. Thus, there is the real possibility of conflicting judicial outcomes, if this case were to proceed to trial. Also, it would also be a significant waste of judicial and Defendants’ limited resources to litigate the very issues that are the subject of the OIGE’s recent investigative audits and revisit the substantial efforts by 35 The Inspector General for Education receives and investigates complaints or information concerning: (1) Instances of fraud, waste, oF abuse involving the use of public funds and property; (2) Violations of eivil rights, as defined in federal or State laws, of students or employees of the entities listed in subsection (a) of this section; G) Whether policies and procedures governing the prevention and reporting of child abuse and negleot comply with applicable federal and State laws on child abuse and neglect; and (4) Compliance with other applicable federal and State laws. Ma. Code, Education § 9.10-104(b). 26City Schools to improve its processes over time, City Schools is working cooperatively with MSDE and OIGE to address any remaining findings and recommendations, This Court should not interfere with the the existing statutory framework established to address these educational matters. B. PLamntirrs’ Lawsuit Is AN EDUCATION MALPRACTICE ACTION THAT IS BARRED IN MARYLAND. tits core, Plaintiffs’ lawsuit is alleging educational malpractice or negligence. Maryland law, however, expressly prohibits such claims. See Gurbani v. Johns Hopkins Health Sys. Corp., 237 Md. App. 261, 293 (2018) (noting that the Court of Appeals has refused to “recognize a tort action seeking damages based on negligent education” and, accordingly, dismissing claim where “gravamen” of claim “sounded in negligence, asserting a right to damages for the alleged failure of the school system to properly educate the child.”) (quotation marks and modifications omitted); Hunter v. Bd. of Educ, of Montgomery Co., 292 Md. 481, 484 (1982). BCBSC adopts and incorporates by reference as if fully stated herein Section III of the ‘Argument contained in the Mayor and City Council of Baltimore City’s Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, or in the Alternative for Summary Judgment, C. PLAINTIFFS LACK STANDING AND HAVE FAILED To MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR ‘TAXPAYER STANDING. Plaintiffs cannot proceed with their claims unless the Amended Complaint establishes standing and, here, Plaintiffs rely on a theory of “taxpayer standing.” See Norman v. Borison, 192 Ma. App. 405, 420 (2010), aff'd, 418 Md, 630 (2011) (“Standing is a threshold issue; a party may proceed only if he demonstrates that he has a real and justiciable interest that is capable of being resolved through litigation."), Standing “depends on whether one is aggrieved, which means whether a plaintiff has an interest such that he or she is personally and specifically affected in a 27way different from the public generally.” Kendall v. Howard Cty., 431 Md. $90, 603 (2013) (modifications and quotation marks omitted). Standing further requires that the complaint sufficiently allege “an injury-in-fact, or an actual legal stake in the matter being adjudicated.” Norman, 192 Md. App. at 420 (quotation marks omitted)2° ‘The foundation for Plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing theory is that they, along with other City have taxpayers, “are injured by Defendants’ unlawful acts or omissions because Plaintifls contributed, through their tax payments, to the School System funding that has been misused, and will continue to contribute to the ongoing waste in the future.” Am. Compl. | 56. As explained below, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the requirements for taxpayer standing, i. Taxpayer Standing Generally ‘The analysis of whether taxpayer standing exists must be viewed in light of the warning issued by the Court of Appeals on the issue: taxpayer standing cases “have the potential to substantially burden the time and treasure of local governments, impeding their efforts to serve the citizenry.” George v. Baltimore Cty., 463 Md. 263, 268 (2019). “Taxpayer standing doctrine permits a taxpayer to invoke the aid of a court of equity to restrain the action of a public official, which is illegal or ultra vires and may injuriously affect the taxpayer's rights and property.” Id. at 275 (quotation marks omitted); see also Floyd v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 463 Md. 226, 242 (2019) (“Taxpayer standing is a common law standing doctrine that permits % While the doctrines of standing and ripeness both “fall under the umbrella of justiciability.” G & C Gulf, 442 Ma at 696 n. 2 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted), they are distinet. See idl; Stare Center, 438 Md. at 498. Standing “refers to whether the plaintiff has shown that he or she is entitled to invoke the judicial process in a particular instance,” id. at 502; whereas a question of ripeness “arises if parties, entitled to invoke the judicial process, ask to declare their rights upon a state of facts which has not yet arisen, or upon a matter which is future, contingent and uncertain.” G & C Gulf, 442 Md. at 696 n. 2. ‘The requirement of standing “is designed to ensure that a party seeking relief has a sufficiently cognizable stake in the outcome so as to present a court with a dispute that is eapable of judicial resolution.” Kendal! ¥. Howard Cty., 431 Md. $90, 603 (2013) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). 28taxpayers to seek the aid of courts, exercising equity powers, to enjoin illegal and ultra vires acts of public officials where those acts are reasonably likely to result in pecuniary loss to the taxpayer.”) (quotation marks and modification omitted). Importantly, the taxpayer standing doctrine does not “provide unfettered access to the courts to citizens unhappy with all actions taken by... local governing bodies.” Floyd, 463 Md. at 242 (quoting Anne Arundel Cty. v. Bell, 442 Md. 539, 576 (2015)). ‘There are no cases in Maryland extending taxpayer standing into the highly regulated area of education, where the MSBE has visitatorial authority. Through this lens, a complaint must meet “two broad requirements.” Id. at 276. First, the ‘complaint must assert “taxpayer status,” which includes a demonstration that the plaintiff is taxpayer and that the suit is “brought either expressly or implicitly, on behalf of all other taxpayers.”®7 {d. Second, the complaint “must assert a ‘special interest,’ alternatively referred to as the ‘special damage’ requirement.” /d. Under this prong, a plaintiff must allege: “(1) an action by a municipal corporation or public official that is illegal or ultra vires; and (2) that the action may injuriously aflect the taxpayer’s property, meaning that it reasonably may result in a pecuniary loss to the taxpayer or an increase in taxes.” Id. at 275-76 (modifications omitted). Importantly, “there must be a ‘nexus’ between the showing of potential pecuniary damage and the challenged act.” Jd. at 244, The “nexus” requirement has been “perhaps the most frequent stumbling block for complainants claiming taxpayer standing.” Id Indeed, to demonstrate a nexus, “the taxpayer must be asserting a challenge and seeking a remedy that, if granted, would alleviate the tax burden on that individual and others; otherwise, standing does not exist.” Id. 37 BCBSC does not challenge the sufficiency of the Amended Complaint on this first requirement because the Amended Complaint alleges that Plaintiffs are taxpayers (see Am. Compl. 4 3) and that the lawsuit is brought on behalf of similarly situated taxpayers (see Am. Compl. $2), 29(quoting Bell, 442 Md. at 579). Failure to meet any of these elements is fatal to a taxpayer complaint, ii, Plaintiffs Have Failed to Assert Factual Allegations of Current, Ongoing, or Imminent Ultra Vires or Megal Acts Sufficient to Support Taxpayer ‘Standing. ‘Taxpayer standing requires allegations of “illegal or ultra vires” acts. George, 463 Md. at 276. While this prong has been “applied leniently” by courts, a plaintiff still is required to sufficiently allege “in good faith” such illegal or ultra vires acts. See id. Here, Plaintiffs have failed to properly allege this prong, There are no factual allegations of illegal or ultra vires acts that cannot be fully addressed by City Schools’ own intemal processes, in conjunction with the substantial state and federal oversight in the educational arena. Moreover, Plaintiffs’ allegations are equally deficient in asserting “system-wide” misconduct or “intentional misrepresentation.” While Plaintiffs have deleted the words “fraud” and “fraudulent” from the current version of their Complaint, they have replaced those words with “intentional” and “deliberate” misrepresentations. These slight changes in wording in the Amended Complaint do not eliminate the heightened pleading standard that Plaintiffs face in alleging “intentional misrepresentation” and “deceitful actions.” The tort of intentional misrepresentation is also called fraud or deceit.** ‘As noted above, even the OIGE’s 4/2022 investigative audit findings regarding enrollment issues represent just 0.3% of City Schools” total students eligible for state funding over OIGE’s five-year review period (SY 2016-17 through 2020-21). See Ex. V at Appendix A. “The issues identified by the OIGE were previously reported in enrollment data that City Schools regularly See Richard J, Gilbert & Paul T. Gilbert, Maryland Tort Law Handbook § 17.0 (LexisNexis Mathew Bender 3¢ ed. 2016). Gilbert and Gilbert point out that actions for intentional misrepresentation had traditionally been termed fraud when instituted in the law courts, and termed deceit when instituted in the equity courts. They point out that the elements for each were identical, Fraud, itself, is a generic term which embraces intentional misrepresentation and concealment. See, e.g:, MPHI-Cv. 11:1 30shares with MSDE.” See id.; see also Am. Compl. at 24 (the School System “self-reported” that figure to MSDE). Moreover, the total yearly numbers and percentages of ineligible students have declined due to significant process improvements recognized by the OIGE, with the exception of the 2020-21 school year, where the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic also affected enrollment counts. See Ex, V at Appendix A. Plaintiffs are attempting to simplify these complex educational matters and have this Court step into the shoes of MSDE, which is statutorily tasked with addressing these educational matters. Aso, with complete disregard to the pleading standard, Plaintiffs, in conclusory fashion, allege that “[ulpon information and belief, based on the foregoing, the [School] Board has deliberately mispresented the number of enrolled students at other schools in the Schoot System in addition to Augusta Fells, resulting in excessive funds being appropriated by the Board in the annual budget, Am. Compl. at 79 (emphasis added). Yet, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts in support of their conclusory claims of “deliberate” or “intentional” misrepresentation and also have failed to allege facts that any such “misrepresentation” is ongoing and systemic, with imminent and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs.” Simply put, Plaintiffs’ forced taxpayer standing assertion is misplaced. Indeed, BCBSC has been unable to find a single case in Maryland where a plaintiff successfully alleged taxpayer standing in the highly regulated area of education. Also, BCBSC has been unable to find any cases in Maryland where a plaintiff suecessfully alleged taxpayer standing for past alleged misconduct, where systemic improvements ot corrective actions have been taken, which did not include some real and conerete threat of current, ongoing or imminent harm to taxpayers that could only be » ns do not meet the pleading standard, the Court need not consider them at this motion to dismiss phase. See Floyd, 463 Md. at 255, 31remedied through judicial intervention. Moreover, here, the School System itself identified, self reported, investigated, and implemented systemic improvements to address the misconduct at APS. See Ex. X. Also, most of the issues identified by the OIGE in its 4/2022 investigative audit were previously reported in enrollment data that City Schools regularly shares with MSDE. See Ex. V at Appendix A. In any event, systemic improvements have been implemented by City Schools, and others continue to be implemented, in coordination with MSDE. To the extent that there are disagreements with respeet to the best funding system, MSDE is best placed to address. Plus, itis well-established that local school boards are “subject to extensive supervision by the State Board of Education in virtually every aspect of their operations.” See, e.g., Chesapeake Charter, Inc. v. Anne Arundel County Bd. of Educ., 358 Md. 129, 137 (1999). The MSBE’s oversight is in addition to the layers of federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Education under the 50-year old Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), and the more recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). Regarding the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit, the School System has fully cooperated with the OIGE, and it has been working on implementing systemic improvements even before receiving the OIGE’s audit report. As discussed above, City Schools stands ready to collaborate with MSDE on further improvements. This Court should not, ‘and cannot, interfere in these educational matters. Plaintiffs” allegations are insufficient to force Defendant BCBSC into this litigation on the basis of taxpayer standing. Only two schools (AFS and Claremont) were mentioned in the original Complaint, and while Plaintiffs have amended their Complaint to include the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit, these new allegations demonstrate that there is an existing statutory framework in place to address these complex educational matters with the entities best suited to address them, Moreover, as noted above, the total yearly numbers and percentages of ineligible 32students have declined due to significant process improvements recognized by the OIGE, with the exception of the 2020-21 school year, where the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic also affected enrollment counts, Accordingly, Plaintiffs have failed to satisfy this element of taxpayer standing both with respect to ABS, Claremont or City Schools as a whole, iii, Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege a “Specific Injury” The Amended Complaint is further deficient because Plaintiffs have not asserted a “specific injury.” ‘The Court of Appeals has noted that the “specific injury” requirement often proves to be a “stumbling block” for a taxpayer plaintiff. George, 463 Md. at 276. In pertinent part, this element requires that the taxpayer “reasonably may sustain a pecuniary loss[, ] an increase in taxes” or that the action seeks to “prevent waste or unlawful use of public property or funds.” Id, at 277. Further, there must be a link between the illegal or ultra vires acts and the alleged harm. Id, 276, ‘The Court of Appeals in Floyd—which was an action brought by taxpayers to challenge rezoning ordinances—coneluded that the circuit court properly rejected plaintiffs’ taxpayer standing assertion because the complaint failed to “sufficiently allege pecuniary loss or an increase in taxes.” Floyd, 463 Md. at 255. The plaintiffs in Floyd relied on the following “baldly alleged” paragraph of their complaint in an effort to assert a specific injury: “[t]he ultra vires or illegal imposition of a new Zoning Map on Baltimore City will cause Baltimore City taxpayers to suffer pecuniary losses or tax increases.” Jd, The court found that plaintiffs “did not allege, with any explanation or particularity, the pecuniary losses or tax increases expected or how the new Zoning. Map potentially would result in such harm,” Jd, at 255-56. Further, the court rejected any notion that such “bare allegations” are acceptable at the pleading stage of a taxpayer standing case: This is a bare allegation that, in and of itself, is insufficient to establish taxpayer standing, Were we to conclude otherwise, anyone could establish 33taxpayer standing by merely using the magic words ‘pecuniary loss and an increase in taxes ld. In contrast, the Court of Appeals in George found that the plaintiffs properly asserted a specific injury relating to the alleged ultra vires acts committed by Baltimore County through its operation of an animal shelter, See George, 463 Ma, at 278. There, the plaintiffs alleged: “excess expenditures on veterinary care, food, and medications; the cost of maintaining animals that, if cared for properly, would be eligible for adoption; lost revenue due to these non-occurrent adoptions; and excessive staffing resulting from an inadequate volunteer program...” Jd, Notably, ‘and seemingly due to the ongoing and imminent nature of the allegations, the plaintiffs in George sought “preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining the alleged illegal activity.” Jd. at 282. Here, Plaintiffs’ allegations are defective with regard the existence of a requisite “specific injury.” The ulira vires acts asserted ({.,, the Enrollment and Academic Allegations) will not cause the harm alleged (i., “funding that has been misused” and “ongoing waste in the future” (Am. Compl. {| 56)) because Plaintiffs fail to identify any wlira vires act that occurred after the 2020-2021 school year. That is, the alleged past improper or illegal activity cited by Plaintifts cannot cause future harm because City Schools has implemented systemic improvements and is addressing the issues with MSDE and the OIGE. See, e.g, Ex. X (AFS Summary Report) and Ex. \V at Appendix A (City Schools’ Response to OIGE’s Investigative Audit). Accordingly, Plaintifts simply have failed to allege any taxpayer injury or waste that would support taxpayer standing, Moreover, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts of current and ongoing misconduct that may cause the harm alleged in perpetuity. Instead, Plaintiffs have baldly asserted that past instances of alleged ultra vires acts will occur endlessly and throughout all City Schools. Stated succinctly, :ninent waste, misuse, or an increase of taxes. Accordingly, past acts are insufficient to establis! 34these allegations, without more, are the same “bare allegations” that were rejected by the Court of Appeals in Floyd and pale in comparison to the ongoing and imminent conduct alleged in George. ix. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Allege A Sufficient Nexus Between the Challenged Acts, the Potential Pecuniary Injury and the Potential for the Remedy to Alleviate the Alleged Harm Incurred The Amended Complaint further fails to allege a “meaningful connection between the allegedly illegal or ultra vires acts and the harms claimed”; ie., there is no connection between the Enrollment and Academic Allegations and any alleged pecuniary loss or tax increase. See Floyd, 463 Md. at 257. The court in Floyd reiterated that: nexus requitement is perhaps the most frequent stumbling block for complainants claiming taxpayer standing because, to demonstrate a nexus, the taxpayer must be asserting a challenge and seeking a remedy that, if granted, would alleviate the tax burden on that individual and others; otherwise, standing does not exist. 4, (quotation marks omitted). Stated differently, “there must be a connection between”: (1) “the allegedly illegal or ultra vires act,” (2) “the harm caused to the taxpayer,” and (3) “the potential for the remedy to alleviate the harm incurred.” /d. (affirming dismissal of complaint and holding that a “sufficient nexus was not alleged.”) (modifications omitted). With respect to the first two links in the nexus chain, Plaintiffs have failed to sufficiently connect the alleged misconduct and the harm. See, e.g, id. at 258 (holding that the “harms alleged are unrelated to Respondent's allegedly illegal or ultra vires actions.”). Here, the harm alleged— “the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds” (Am. Compl. 4 2)—is not directly tied to the misconduct alleged. Moreover, there is already a statutory framework in place to address returning particular funding when the circumstances warrant said return. ‘Additionally, the third link in the nexus chain, that the “potential for the remedy to alleviate the harm incurred,” has not been met by Plaintiffs" Amended Complaint. Aside from injunctive 35relief (discussed infra), Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment on a laundry-list of issues. See Am. Compl. 123-131. Based on the Enrollment and Academie Allegations, Plaintiffs request that this Court “issue a declaratory judgment finding that Defendants are in violation of” several statutes and regulations, order “Defendants to institute policies and procedures to attain and maintain compliance, and to develop and maintain an independent monitoring system to ensure future compliance.” See, e.g., Am, Compl. 124. Plaintiffs are choosing to ignore the policies and procedures that City Schools has instituted and continues to implement to promote continuous improvements in its practices, with the substantial oversight of MSDE, among other government agencies. The granting of Plaintifts” requested relief would “not alleviate the [alleged] tax burden on that individual and others..." Floyd, 463 Md. at 257. As stated throughout this Memorandum, and leaving aside Plaintiffs’ bare allegations for a system-wide imputation of intentional misconduct to City Schools as a whole and in perpetuity, Plaintiffs have not alleged ongoing, pervasive misconduct that is likely to continue into the future, City Schools has undertaken significant improvements over time, even against a backdrop of systemic underfunding of City Schools, Therefore, if the Court were to “declare” that the conduct underlying the Enrollment and ‘Academic Allegations were in violation of any civil or criminal statute, Plaintiffs (and those similarly situated) would not be alleviated of any alleged tax burden. See Floyd, 463 Md. at 258 (holding that plaintiffs’ “failed to seek a remedy that, if granted, would alleviate any alleged tax burden or pecuniary loss that would result if” the court declared that “Respondent failed to comply with applicable notice, publication, and public hearing requirements in adopting and enacting the Zoning Map, and that the Zoning Map was null and void.”). 36In sum, Plaintiffs have utterly failed to establish the prongs required to maintain a taxpayer standing and, thus, the Amended Complaint must be dismissed. D. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED TO PLEAD AN ACTUAL, JUSTICIABLE CONTROVERSY Maryland’s Declaratory Judgment Act provides that “a court has discretion to grant a declaratory judgment or decree in a civil case if it will serve to terminate the uncertainty or controversy giving rise to the proceeding, and if . . . [a]n actual controversy exists between contending patties.” Md. Code Ann,, Cts, & Jud, Proc. § 3-409(a)(1); see also Pizza di Joey, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Balt., 410 Md. 308, 340 (2020). “(T]he existence of a justiciable controversy is an absolute prerequisite to the maintenance of a declaratory judgment action.” Boyds Civie Ass'n v. Montgomery County Council, 309 Md. 683, 689 (1987) (quoting Hatt v. Anderson, 297 Md. 42, 45 (1983)). “It follows, therefore, that in the absence of a justiciable controversy a court should not entertain an action for declaratory judgment.” Boyds Civie Ass'n, 309 Md. at 690. To do otherwise “would place courts in the position of rendering purely advisory opinions, a long forbidden practice in this State.” State Center, LLC v. Lexington Charles Ltd. P'ship, 438 Md, 451, at 591 (quoting Boyds Civic Ass'n, 309 Md. at 690). Ripeness, an element of justiciability, seeks “to ensure that adjudication will dispose of an actual controversy in a conclusive and binding manner.” State Cir., 438 Md, at 591-92; see also Hickory Point P'ship v. Anne Arundel County, 316 Md. 118, 130 (1989) (“The purpose of the ripeness doctrine ‘is to prevent premature judicial interference with government action and to avoid entanglement in abstract, poorly defined disputes.) (quoting Albert, Justiciability and Theories of Judicial Review: A Remote Relationship, 50 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1139, 1155 (1977). “A claim for declaratory relief ‘lacks ripeness if it involves a request that the court declare the rights of parties upon a state of facts which has not yet arisen, or upon a matter which is future, 37contingent[,] and uncertain,” Pizza di Joey, 470 Md. at 340 (quoting State Cir., 438 Md. at 591). “But because one of the primary purposes of the declaratory judgment act is to “relieve litigants of the rule of the common Jaw that no declaration of rights may be judicially adjudged unless a right has been violated,’ ripeness in this context ‘can become an elusive concept." Pizza di Joey, LLC v. Mayor & City Council of Balt,, 241 Md. App. 139, 161 (2019) (quoting Boyds Civie Ass'n, 309 Ma. at 691). Here, from the facts as alleged, the Amended Complaint raises no present justiciable controversy between the parties. The Amended Complaint is utterly devoid of any factual allegations that BCBSC is presently engaging in actions that are ultra vires and illegal. Plaintitts rely heavily on the inappropriate conduct that City Schools identified in August 2019 at AFS regarding, inter alia, improper grade changing and students scheduled into classes that did not exist and/or that they did not attend, (See, e.g., Am. Compl. at $f 30, 34, 37-39, 75-77, 79, 88, 94, 95, 115, 118, 119). But it was City Schools itself that, in August 2019, identified potential irregularities in the manner that AFS was enrolling and graduating students and then launched a formal investigation in September 2019. See Ex. X (AFS Summary Report). Once the investigation was complete, City Schools took disciplinary action against those staff members involved and implemented systemic improvements to “further City Schools’ ongoing commitment to meet students’ individual needs and provide meaningful pathways to graduation and career readiness.” See Ex. X at p. 4, City Schools has continued its systemic improvements and is working with MSDE to determine whether funding needs to be reconciled in light of City Schools’ internal investigation findings. Similarly, Plaintiffs rely heavily on alleged events in 2016 at Claremont involving, inter alia, the discovery of students enrolled, but not actually attending the school (referred to as “ghost 38students”), But, again, the alleged conduct complained of took place a number of years ago, and there are no factual allegations in the Amended Complaint regarding ongoing or current misconduct at Claremont. Plaintiffs make an enormous and unfounded leap that certain issues at two schools, which BCBSC has worked to address, somehow translates into system-wide fraud and “mismanagement” of the School System by BCBSC. Even the enrollment discrepancies detailed in OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit represent just 0.3% of City Schools’ total students eligible for state funding over the OIGE’s five-year review period. See Ex. V at Appendix A. City Schools is committed to systemic and continuous improvements. In fact, as noted above, the OIGE recognized in its audit that overall City Schools has “instituted effective centralized processes” in its due diligence tracking of student enrollment for funding eligibility purposes. See Ex. V. The OIGE further acknowledged that City Schools’ “rigorous” protocols “resulted in decreased instances of subsequently reported ineligibilities during [OIGE’s five-year] review period,” except for the 2020-21 school year when the COVID- 19 pandemic presented challenges. See id. ‘There is nothing in said audit report to indicate that any discrepancies were the result of systemwide “fraud,” “deceit,” or “intentional mistepresentation.” Again, Plaintiffs have not alleged any facts of present or ongoing system- \wide fraud, but instead have made broad, conclusory allegations using the buzz words of “deceitful actions,” “mismanagement,” and “deliberate,” “intentional” misrepresentations. ‘These sweeping and broad accusations of criminal and fraudulent/deceitful conduct are extremely. serious accusations to be making against BCBSC and this must be supported by factual allegations, not mere conclusory allegations. Even though Plaintiffs took the opportunity to amend their allegations after receiving Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the original Complaint, the Amended Complaint is still replete with conclusory allegations and many allegations are made “uponinformation and belief" (see, e,g., Am. Compl. at §§ 32, $2, 72, 77, 79, 83, 115, 116, and 119). In short, the Amended Complaint is wholly insufficient to meet the requirement of an actual and justiciable controversy.” ‘There ate no allegations in the Amended Complaint that City Schools has failed to cooperate with MSDE regarding return of particular funding when the circumstances warrant said return, In fact, Plaintiffs allege that City Schools did return funding in connection with the instance in 2014 where City Schools “overreported its enrollment data by 978 students.” Am, Compl. at { 21. Plaintiffs also allege that City Schools returned the funding in connection with the instance in 2016 where City Schools overreported its enrollment data by 1,900 students. Jd. With respect to AES, City Schools has committed itself to continued cooperation with MSDE to address any funding-based issues. See Ex. X, Lastly, with respect to the OIGE"s 4/2022 Investigative Audit Report, City Schools will work with MSDE to explore enhancements to the statewide funding system, See Ex. V at Appendix A, p. 5. In sum, the Amended Complaint fails to meet the requirement of an actual and justiciable controversy."' The Amended Complaint is nothing more than a plea for an advisory opinion, “a long forbidden practice in this State.” See Pizza di Joey, LLC, 470 Md. at 340 (citation omitted). “© Additionally, this Court should not entertain this declaratory judgment action because there is already pending another action in this Court, ie. Angel Lewis v. BCBSC (Case No. 24-C-1804157), concerning many of the same issues. Cf Hanover Investments v. Volkman, 455 Md. 1, 17 (2017). “This judicial reticence has long been part of the guidance concerning declaratory judgments.” /d, (citing E. Borchard, Declaratory Judgments (2d ed. 1941) 350 (“it is manifestly unwise and unnecessary to permit a new petition for a declaration to be initiated” when there is a similar, pending action.) “It is widely followed in other Jurisdictions.” Hanover Investments, 455 Md. at 17 (citing cases from numerous jurisdictions). Moreover, there are strong policy considerations for the principle that a court should decline to issue a declaratory Jjudgment in deference to a pending action, including conserving judicial resources, avoiding conflicting judgments, and preventing evasion of the final judgment requirement for appeal. 1d. “The same standard applies to injunctive relief. If there is no justiciable controversy, there is nothing to enjoin. 40E. THE “TAXPAYER STANDING” DOCTRINE DOES Nor OPEN THE DOOR For A TAXPAYER. TO CHALLENGE ANY LOCAL GOVERNMENT ACTION. This Court should also dismiss the Amended Complaint because the “taxpayer standing” doctrine does not open the door for a taxpayer to challenge any local government action. As discussed in Section IV.A above, the MSBE “exercises broad dominion and control over the administration of the public-school system in Maryland.” Donlon v. Montgomery Cnty. Public Schools, 460 Md. 62, 81 (2018). This Court should defer to the broad sweep of MSBE’s authority on these matters. In addition, as discussed above, City Schools itself identified and reported the alleged wrongdoing at AFS, and subsequently investigated and implemented systemic improvements. If this type of conduct could trigger “taxpayer standing,” it would deter public agencies from monitoring their own actions, conducting investigations where appropriate, and engaging in continuing improvement. Surely, this Cour, like the MSBE, would not want to deter local school systems from monitoring their own actions, self-reporting when they become aware of errors or misconduct, and implementing systemic improvements or corrective measures, Similarly, with respect to the OIGE’s investigative audit and City Schools’ continued systemic improvements, this Court should not want to deter cooperation between City Schools, OIGE, and MSDE. The results of an OIGE investigative audit cannot serve as a basis for a taxpayer to run into court to seek declaratory and/or injunctive relief, The OIGE operates a hotline so that anyone, including taxpayers, can report allegations of fraud, waste, abuse, or financial misconduct occurring within the State. A taxpayer cannot, and should not, be permitted to run into court to make allegations based on newspaper articles and an OIGE investigative audit and make an end-run around the existing statutory framework and well-established procedures. 41F. PLamntirrs Have FAILED TO MEET THE HEIGHTENED PLEADING STANDARD FOR THEIR ALLEGATIONS OF DECEIT, INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION, AND OTHER FRAUD-RELATED ALLEGATIONS. While Plaintiffs have removed from their Complaint their wholly unfounded allegations of “criminal racketeering,” “mail fraud,” “theft,” “embezzlement,” “conspiracy to commit fraud,” and “widespread conspiracy to fraudulently report student enrollment data,” Plaintiff3 continue to allege, in conclusory fashion, violations of criminal law; “widespread” and “intentional” “‘misrepresentations” by City Schools; and that it “actively conceals its misconduct”; engages in “illegal conduct”; resulting in “systemic and continuous statutory and regulatory violations." See, e.g, Am, Compl. 4 32, 44, 46, 52, 72, 75, 79, 80, 81, 83, 84, and 122. Plaintiffs" removal of only some of the offending, scandalous, and unfounded accusations did not cure the Amended Complaint. Plaintiffs’ allegations still do not state a claim for anything, Plaintiffs have failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for deceit, intentional misrepresentation, and the other serious, fraud-related allegations and, thus, these allegations must be dismissed or, at a minimum, stricken from the Amended Complaint. tis well settled under Maryland law that allegations of fraud, also known as “intentional misrepresentation” or deceit, must be pled with particularity. See, e.g. Bennett Heating and Air Conditioning, Inc. v. Nationsbank of Maryland, 342 Md. 169, 190 (1996); Antigua Condominium ‘Ass'n v, Melba Investors Atlantic, Inc., 307 Md, 700, 735 (1986); Wooddy v. Wooddy, 256 Md. 2 As noted herein, all of the remaining allegations regarding alleged violations of criminal law should be stricken from the Amended Complaint pursuant to Maryland Rule 2-322(e). They are immaterial and inflammatory in this civil lawsuit seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. These allegations are also improper, impertinent, and scandalous matter. 48” The OIGE did not find any evidence of intentional deception as it pertained to incorrect attendance records. See OIG Investigative Audit 22-0001-A, MSDE State Aid Enrollment Counts, Final Report, April 20, 2022 (htips://oige.maryland.gov/wp-content/uploads/sites/18/2022/04/22-0001-A-OIGE-Investigative- ‘Audit-Final-Report-MSDE-04202022.pdf). This Court may take judicial notice of this public record. See Mad. Rule 5-201 42440, 451 (1970) (“It is well settled that in alleging fraud ‘particular facts must be stated...””); Bachrach v, Washington United Coop, Inc., 181 Md. 315, 318 (1943). In Bennest, the Court of Appeals articulated this pleading requirement stating: This Court has said that ‘[gleneral or conclusory allegations of fraud are insufficient. A plaintiff must allege facts which indicate fraud or from which fraud is necessarily implied.’ Antigua Condominixm ‘Ass'n v. Melba Investors Atlantic, Inc., 307 Md. 700, 735, 517 A.2d 75, 93 (1986); see also Wooddy v. Wooddy, 256 Md. 440, 451, 261 A2d 486, 491 (1970) (“It is well settled that in alleging fraud ‘particular facts must be stated...””). In Bachrach, 181 Md. 315, 29 A.2d 822, dealing with a collateral attack, based on fraud, against an enrolled judgment of ratification, we said that “fas the particular acts of fraud relied on must be specifically charged, a bill of complaint making only general allegations of fraud is demurrable.” Id, at 318, 29 A.2d at 824. 342 Md. at 190. Despite requesting far-reaching declaratory and injunctive relief based on BCBSC’s alleged widespread fraud or misconduct, the Amended Complaint is devoid of any particularized factual allegations regarding BCBSC’s alleged intentional conduct, including intentional misrepresentation.* Accordingly, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed. See Morris v. Osmose Wood Preserving, 340 Md. 519, 531 (1995) (“Mere conclusory charges that are not factual allegations may not be considered” by the Court in ruling upon a motion to dismiss.) “In Maryland, in order to state a cause of action for fraud or deceit, a plaintiff must allege facts disclosing (1) that the defendant made a false representation to the plaintiff; (2) that its falsity was either known to the defendant or that the representation was made with reckless indifference 4 Plaintiffs’ suggestion, in ff] 33 and 34 of the Amended Complaint, that BCBSC’s failure to mention the OIGE’s draft investigation report dated March 17, 2022 in its Memorandum in Support of its Motion to Dismiss the original Complaint is somehow evidence of intentional misconduct on the part of BCBSC is absurd. A motion to dismiss addresses the allegations contained in a complaint; nothing more. BCBSC is not expected to raise new matters or new documents in a motion to dismiss. 43as to its truth; (3) that the misrepresentation was made for the purpose of defrauding the plaintiff, (4) that the plaintiff relied on the misrepresentation and had the right to rely on it; and (5) that the plaintiff suffered compensable injury resulting from the misrepresentation.” Alleco Inc. v. Harry & Jeanette Weinberg Found, 340 Md, 176, 195-196 (Ma. 1995) (intemal citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege facts of the so-called “deceit” and that any misrepresentations “were made for the purpose of defrauding” Baltimore City taxpayers (or the State). Plaintiffs have also failed to sulliciently demonstrate that they suffered a “specific injury.” “Any ambiguity or uncertainty in the allegations bearing on whether the complaint states ‘a cause of action must be construed against the pleader.” Alleco Inc., Inc., 340 Md. 176, 193, 665 A.2d 1038, 1046 (1995) (quoting Sharrow v, State Farm Mutual, 306 Md. 754, 768, 511 A.2d 492, 499-300 (1986) (intemal citations). Plaintiffs’ repetition of the same few events, over-and-over again, throughout the Amended Complaint is no substitute for legally-actionable and well-pled facts, Thus, Plaintiffs have utterly failed to meet the heightened pleading standard for the various fraud-related allegations and, thus, the Amended Complaint should be dismissed. G. Tuts COURT SHOULD DECLINE To HEAR THIS DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ACTION. ‘The permissive language of Maryland’s Declaratory Judgment Act clearly indicates that the court has discretionary authority to decline to hear a declaratory judgment action. See Md. Code Ann., Cts. & Jud. Proc. § 3-409(a)(1). Here, this Court should exercise that discretionary authority and dismiss the Amended Complaint given the unique circumstances of this case detailed herein. ‘Also, declaratory relief should not be granted where it would not serve a useful purpose or terminate a controversy. See Liss v. Goodman, 224 Md. 173 (1961). Here, declaratory relief would 44not serve a useful purpose, For example, MSDE is already working with City Schools to address to be returned. Also, City Schools itself identified any funding issues, including where fundin; many of the issues and has enhanced its own practices, with severe funding limitations, as recognized by the OIGE and in City Schools’ response to the OIGE’s 4/2022 Investigative Audit. This Court should consider the availability and relative convenience of other remedies. Furthermore, as detailed above, there is no actual and justiciable controversy alleged in the Amended Complaint and, thus, the requested declaratory relief would not terminate a “controversy.” 1H. PLAINTIFFS HAVE FAILED To Stare A CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF In addition to broad declaratory relief, Plaintiffs appear to be seeking broad and permanent injunctive relief. There is, however, no separate section in the Amended Complaint addressing injunctive relief, and Plaintiffs have failed to plead the elements required to obtain permanent injunctive relief, Plaintiffs have simply added a sentence at the end of their Amended Complaint stating that “[aJbsent the issuance of a permanent injunction, Plaintiff3 will sustain substantial and irreparable injury as taxpayers...” See Am Compl. at 4 132, Without any supporting factual allegations, Plaintiffs assert that they are seeking to “enjoin the waste of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds through the illegal and wlira vires actions” of Defendants. Am. Compl. §2. Further, Plaintiffs allege, in conclusory fashion that the “citizens of Baltimore City receive no benefit” from the School System and that this “waste” has the “potential to increase taxes paid by residents of Baltimore City.” Am. Compl. | 122 (emphasis added). 45” Even an “actual controversy” does not confer an absolute right upon parties seeking a declaratory judgment 45As discussed above in Section D of the Argument, there is no actual, justiciable controversy here, Also, as discussed above in Sections A, C, and E of the Argument, Maryland’s appellate courts have not extended taxpayer standing into the educational realm, nor should they, relying on deference to MSBE’s plenary authority. Without taxpayer standing, Plaintiffs have failed to state any claim for injunetive relief. ‘Also, an injunction is an extraordinary remedy and, especially with mandatory injunctions requiring future action, must be issued with caution, See, e.g, Md Tr. Co. v. Tulip Realty Co. of ‘Ma., 220 Ma. 399, 412-13 (1959). As stated by the Court of Appeals, an injunction is“... writ framed according to the circumstances of the case commanding an act which the court regards as essential 10 justice, or restraining an act which it esteems contrary to equity and good conscience.” Colandrea v, Wilde Lake Cmty, Ass'n, 361 Md. 371, 394 (2000). A person who fails to comply with such an order is subject to the court's contempt powers. A complaint of request for injunctive relief must allege and demonstrate the following: (1) the existence of some right that will be irreparably injured, Anne Arundel County v. Whitehall Venture, 39 Md. App. 197 (1978); (2) the benefits to the plaintiff in obtaining the injunetion are equal to or outweigh the potential harm which the defendant would incur, were the injunction granted, Fogel v. H'& G Rest, Inc., 337 Md. 441 (1995); (3) the plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury unless the injunction is granted, Scott v, Seek Lange Venture, Inc.,91 Md. App., 668 (1992); and (4) when appropriate, the public interest is best served by granting the injunction, State Dep't of Health & Mental Hygiene v, Baltimore County, 281 Md. 548 (1977). Here, Plaintiffs have failed to allege the requisite elements. Injunctive relief normally will not be granted unless the petitioner demonstrates that he will sustain substantial and irreparable injury as a result of the alleged conduct. Maryland-Nat'! 46Capital Park and Planning Comm'n v. Washington Nat'l Arena, 282 Md. 588, 615 (1978) (citations omitted). Here, Plaintiffs have not adequately pled that they will sustain substantial and irreparable injury. Alleging “irreparable harm” in conclusory fashion is not sufficient. Here, Plaintiffs have not alleged faets upon which such a statement could be based. Like so much of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs’ passing request for injunctive relief is so clearly devoid of any substance that one is forced to wonder what Plaintiffs are really trying to accomplish with this lawsuit, In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to set forth factual allegations to support a request for injunctive relief, Vv. CONCLUSION Forall of the foregoing reasons, BCBSC respeetfilly requests that this Court enter an Order granting its Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint, dismissing Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint, and granting such other relief as this Court may deem proper. 47Respectfully submitted, ee Ol P A. Tierra R. Gregory LZ WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP Attomey ID: 1212110356 Warren N. Weaver traregory@beps.k12.md.us Attorney ID: 8212010510 OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL wweaver@wtplaw.com BALTIMORE CTY BOARD OF Mana Subar ScHOOL COMMISSIONERS ‘Attorney ID: 9712180218 200 East North Avenue, Suite 208 isubar@wtplaw.com Baltimore, Maryland 21202 ‘Aaron A. Nichols (443) 642-4256 Attorney ID: 1412170271 anichols@wtplaw.com Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 347-8739 Counsel for Defendant Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners p2aszi2is 48JOVANI PATTERSON AND SHAWNDA YVETTE PATTERSON Plaintiff, a BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISIONERS, et al. Defendants. ] IN THE, CIRCUIT COURT FOR BALTIMORE CITY CASE NO.: 24-C-22-000477 DEFENDANT BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS’ REQUEST FOR HEARING Defendant Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners, through its undersigned counsel, respectfully requests a hearing on its Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint. Dated: Jul ae 5, 2022 Respectfully submitted, O fo Pn Tierra R. Gregory Attomey ID: 1212110356 trgregory@beps.k12.md.us OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL BALTiMore Crty BOARD OF SCHOOL COMMISSIONERS 200 East North Avenue, Suite 208 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (443) 642-4256 & Warren N, Weaver Attomey ID: 8212010510 wweaverr@wtplaw.com Mana Subar ‘Attorney ID: 9712180218 isubar@wiplaw.com Aaron A. Nichols Attorney ID: 1412170271 anichols@wtplaw.com Waurrerorb, TAYLOR & PRESTON LLP. Seven Saint Paul Street, Suite 1500 Baltimore, Maryland 21202 (410) 347-8739 Counsel for Defendant Baltimore City Board of School CommissionersJOVANI PATTERSON AND IN THE SHAWNDA YVETTE PATTERSON CIRCUIT COURT Plaintiff FOR BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF ed SCHOOL COMMISIONERS, et al. eee ee eT Defendants. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BALTIMORE CITY BOARD OF SCHOOL ‘COMMISSIONERS’ MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT Upon consideration of Defendant Baltimore City Board of School Commissioners”

You might also like

• The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  

  From Everand

  The Subtle Art of Not Giving a F*ck: A Counterintuitive Approach to Living a Good Life

  Mark Manson

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (5825)
• The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  

  From Everand

  The Gifts of Imperfection: Let Go of Who You Think You're Supposed to Be and Embrace Who You Are

  Brene Brown

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1093)
• Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  

  From Everand

  Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It

  Chris Voss

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (852)
• • Magazines
  • Podcasts
  • Sheet music
• Principles: Life and Work

  

  From Everand

  Principles: Life and Work

  Ray Dalio

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (612)
• The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  The Glass Castle: A Memoir

  Jeannette Walls

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1720)
• Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  

  From Everand

  Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance

  Angela Duckworth

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (590)
• Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Sing, Unburied, Sing: A Novel

  Jesmyn Ward

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1194)
• Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  

  From Everand

  Hidden Figures: The American Dream and the Untold Story of the Black Women Mathematicians Who Helped Win the Space Race

  Margot Lee Shetterly

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (903)
• Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  

  From Everand

  Shoe Dog: A Memoir by the Creator of Nike

  Phil Knight

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (541)
• The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  

  From Everand

  The Perks of Being a Wallflower

  Stephen Chbosky

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2105)
• The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  

  From Everand

  The Hard Thing About Hard Things: Building a Business When There Are No Easy Answers

  Ben Horowitz

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (349)
• Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  

  From Everand

  Elon Musk: Tesla, SpaceX, and the Quest for a Fantastic Future

  Ashlee Vance

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (474)
• Bad Feminist: Essays

  

  From Everand

  Bad Feminist: Essays

  Roxane Gay

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1029)
• The Outsider: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Outsider: A Novel

  Stephen King

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1871)
• Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  

  From Everand

  Her Body and Other Parties: Stories

  Carmen Maria Machado

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (823)
• The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  

  From Everand

  The Sympathizer: A Novel (Pulitzer Prize for Fiction)

  Viet Thanh Nguyen

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (122)
• The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  

  From Everand

  The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer

  Siddhartha Mukherjee

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (271)
• Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  

  From Everand

  Angela's Ashes: A Memoir

  Frank McCourt

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (442)
• Brooklyn: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Brooklyn: A Novel

  Colm Toibin

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (1948)
• The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  

  From Everand

  The Little Book of Hygge: Danish Secrets to Happy Living

  Meik Wiking

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (403)
• A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  A Man Called Ove: A Novel

  Fredrik Backman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (4771)
• Steve Jobs

  

  From Everand

  Steve Jobs

  Walter Isaacson

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (809)
• The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  

  From Everand

  The World Is Flat 3.0: A Brief History of the Twenty-first Century

  Thomas L. Friedman

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2259)
• The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Art of Racing in the Rain: A Novel

  Garth Stein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (4208)
• The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  

  From Everand

  The Yellow House: A Memoir (2019 National Book Award Winner)

  Sarah M. Broom

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (98)
• Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  

  From Everand

  Devil in the Grove: Thurgood Marshall, the Groveland Boys, and the Dawn of a New America

  Gilbert King

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (266)
• A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  

  From Everand

  A Tree Grows in Brooklyn

  Betty Smith

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (1929)
• Yes Please

  

  From Everand

  Yes Please

  Amy Poehler

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (1903)
• A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  

  From Everand

  A Heartbreaking Work Of Staggering Genius: A Memoir Based on a True Story

  Dave Eggers

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (231)
• Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  

  From Everand

  Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln

  Doris Kearns Goodwin

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (234)
• The Woman in Cabin 10

  

  From Everand

  The Woman in Cabin 10

  Ruth Ware

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (2525)
• Wolf Hall: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Wolf Hall: A Novel

  Hilary Mantel

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (3973)
• Fear: Trump in the White House

  

  From Everand

  Fear: Trump in the White House

  Bob Woodward

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (738)
• John Adams

  

  From Everand

  John Adams

  David McCullough

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (2409)
• On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  

  From Everand

  On Fire: The (Burning) Case for a Green New Deal

  Naomi Klein

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (74)
• The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Light Between Oceans: A Novel

  M.L. Stedman

  Rating: 4.5 out of 5 stars

  4.5/5 (789)
• Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  Manhattan Beach: A Novel

  Jennifer Egan

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (880)
• The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  

  From Everand

  The Constant Gardener: A Novel

  John Le Carré

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (104)
• The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  

  From Everand

  The Unwinding: An Inner History of the New America

  George Packer

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (45)
• Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  

  From Everand

  Rise of ISIS: A Threat We Can't Ignore

  Jay Sekulow

  Rating: 3.5 out of 5 stars

  3.5/5 (137)
• Little Women

  

  From Everand

  Little Women

  Louisa May Alcott

  Rating: 4 out of 5 stars

  4/5 (105)
• MSDE Virtual Day Instruction Plan - SY2023-2024 - 072623

  

  Document7 pages

  MSDE Virtual Day Instruction Plan - SY2023-2024 - 072623

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Maryland Election Integrity LLC V Maryland SBE Complaint

  

  Document34 pages

  Maryland Election Integrity LLC V Maryland SBE Complaint

  Christopher Gleason

  No ratings yet
• Linthicum Bail Motion

  

  Document7 pages

  Linthicum Bail Motion

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• SB 618 Bon Letter

  

  Document3 pages

  SB 618 Bon Letter

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Baltimore Collegiate Renewal Recommendation

  

  Document2 pages

  Baltimore Collegiate Renewal Recommendation

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Minimum Wage Statement

  

  Document1 page

  Minimum Wage Statement

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• FY24 Governors Proposed Budget Overview - 1.20.23

  

  Document38 pages

  FY24 Governors Proposed Budget Overview - 1.20.23

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• (Previous) (Next) : Article - Health - General

  

  Document1 page

  (Previous) (Next) : Article - Health - General

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Cannabis Reform

  

  Document55 pages

  Cannabis Reform

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Safe and Supportive Environment Letter

  

  Document4 pages

  Safe and Supportive Environment Letter

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Public Synopsis 22-0059-I (For Website)

  

  Document6 pages

  Public Synopsis 22-0059-I (For Website)

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• 2022 Early Voting Centers

  

  Document4 pages

  2022 Early Voting Centers

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet
• Angelini Steven Criminal Complaint

  

  Document22 pages

  Angelini Steven Criminal Complaint

  Rushaad Hayward

  No ratings yet