Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 1 of 8 PAGEID #: 94

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
WESTERN DIVISION

SARAH UPDIKE and JAMES UPDIKE, :

individually and as parents and next friends :
of their minor children I.U., A.U., and K.U., : Case No. 1:22-cv-00374
:
: Judge Michael R. Barrett
:
and :
:
I.U., A.U., and K.U., minors, by and through :
next friends SARAH UPDIKE and JAMES :
UPDIKE, :
:
: ENTRY GRANTING TEMPORARY
: RESTRAINING ORDER AGAINST
and : ALL DEFENDANTS
:
JENNIFER CIOLINO and ANTONIO :
CIOLINO, individually and as parents and :
next friends of their minor child R.C., :
:
:
:
and :
:
R.C., a minor, by and through next friends :
JENNIFER CIOLINO and ANTONIO :
CIOLINO, :
:
:
:
and :
:
NATALIE WHEELER HASTINGS and :
JEFFREY HASTINGS, individually and as :
parents and next friends of their minor child :
C.J. :
:
:
:
and :
:
:

1
 Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 2 of 8 PAGEID #: 95

C.J., a minor, by and through next friends :

NATALIE WHEELER HASTINGS and :
JEFFREY HASTINGS :
:
:
:
and :
:
JANIELLE A. DAVIS, individually and as :
parent and next friend to her minor child :
J.D., :
:
:
:
:
and :
:
J.D., a minor, by and through next friend :
JANIELLE A. DAVIS :
:
:
:
:
Plaintiffs, :
:
v. :
:
SARA JONAS, in her official capacity as a :
Member of the Board of Education of the :
Forest Hills School District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
LINDA HAUSFELD, in her official :
capacity as a Member of the Board of :
Education of the Forest Hills School :
District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
:
:

2
 Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 3 of 8 PAGEID #: 96

BOB BIBB, in his official capacity as a :

Member of the Board of Education of the :
Forest Hills School District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
KATIE STEWART, in her official capacity :
as a Member of the Board of Education of :
the Forest Hills School District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
LESLIE RASMUSSEN, in her official :
capacity as a Member of the Board of :
Education of the Forest Hills School :
District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
LARRY HOOK, in his official capacity as :
the Superintendent of the Forest Hills :
School District, :
:
:
:
and :
:
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE :
FOREST HILLS SCHOOL DISTRICT :
:
:
:
and :
:
THE FOREST HILLS SCHOOL :
DISTRICT :
:
:
:
Defendants.

3
 Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 4 of 8 PAGEID #: 97

A hearing was held on the day of , 2022 on the Motion pursuant

to Fed.R.Civ. P. 65(b) for a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) of Plaintiffs Sarah and James

Updike, individually and as parents and next friends for their three minor children I.U., A.U. and

K.U.; Jennifer and Antonio Ciolino, individually and as parents and next friends for their minor

child R.C.; Natalie and Jeffrey Hastings, individually and as parents and next friends for their

minor child C.J.; and Janielle Davis, individually and as parent and next friend of her minor child

J.D.

Defendant Board of Education of the Forest Hills School District (the “Board”) is a body

politic under Ohio law capable of being sued. It is comprised of five members: Defendants Sara

Jonas (“Jonas”); Linda Hausfeld (“Hausfeld”); Bob Bibb (“Bibb”); Katie Stewart (“Stewart”); and

Dr. Leslie Rasmussen (“Rasmussen”). Plaintiffs’ Motion is brought against the Board and the

Board members in their official capacities as members of the Board. The Board and the Members

of the Board hold policy-making authority for the Forest Hills School District. Plaintiffs’ Motion

is also brought against Defendant Forest Hills School District (“FHSD”). FHSD is a public school

district located in Anderson Township, Hamilton County, Ohio, and includes two high schools,

one middle school, and six elementary schools. The Motion is also brought against Larry Hook

as the new Superintendent of FHSD. The Superintendent holds policy-making authority for FHSD

with respect to implementation of laws, policies, regulations and procedures governing the FHSD

schools, including enforcement of policies promulgated by the Board or otherwise within the

District. This action is brought against the Superintendent in his official capacity.

4
 Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 5 of 8 PAGEID #: 98

The court finds that all Defendants were properly provided with notice of this action, the

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, and this hearing, as certified by Plaintiffs’

counsel.

Having considered Plaintiffs’ Verified Complaint, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order, and the arguments of counsel, the Court finds Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary

Restraining Order well-taken and hereby grants the same. The Court finds the following:

1. This Court has Federal question subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to

28 U.S.C. §1331 and §1343 as Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. §1983. This

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ state law claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1367 as said claims are so related to the Federal law claims that they form one

case or controversy for purposes of Article III of the United States Constitution, and

with respect to Plaintiffs request for a declaration regarding the Constitutionality of the

Resolution and with respect to their rights under 28 U.S.C. §§2201, 2202.

2. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants as they are located in Hamilton

County, Ohio, which is within the area encompassed by the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Ohio, and Defendant’s wrongful and illegal actions

occurred in Hamilton County, Ohio.

3. Venue lies in this forum pursuant to 28 USC §1391(a) and Southern District Local Civil

Rule 82.1 because the claims arose in Hamilton County, Ohio where at all times

material to this action the parties resided and committed the acts giving rise to this

action.

4. Plaintiffs have demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits of their

claims arising from the Board’s passage of the “Resolution to Create a Culture of

5
Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 6 of 8 PAGEID #: 99

Kindness and Equal Opportunity for All Students and Staff” (“Resolution”) on June

22, 2022 as follows:

a. Violations of the First Amendment protection of the minor Plaintiffs’ rights to

freely receive, exchange and discuss ideas, information, and knowledge in their

education.

b. Violations of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process guarantees and

protections of the minor Plaintiffs and of Plaintiff Sarah Updike, who is a

teacher in the district, due to the vagueness of the Resolution and the inability

to know what speech, curricula and teaching it prohibits.

c. Violations of the First Amendment protections of the minor Plaintiffs, Plaintiff

Sarah Updike, and Plaintiff parents because the Resolution imposes overbroad

content restrictions and viewpoint-based restrictions and infringes upon

academic freedom with no legitimate pedagogical purpose.

d. Violations of the 14th Amendment equal protection rights of all the Plaintiffs as

the Resolution is a race-conscious regulation with an invidious discriminatory

purpose stated upon its face.

e. Plaintiffs’ request for a declaration of the violations stated above and that the

Resolution is unenforceable, void and of no force or effect.

5. The Court further finds that Plaintiffs will suffer irreparable harm as a matter of law if

a temporary restraining order does not issue to enjoin Defendants from enforcement of

the Resolution due to the nature of the claims and that the rights at issue are rights

6
Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 7 of 8 PAGEID #: 100

protected under the Constitution of the United States and the First and Fourteenth

Amendments thereto.

6. The Court further finds that no harm to third parties or Defendants will result from the

issuance of a temporary restraining order to preserve the status quo until a hearing on

a preliminary injunction combined with a trial on the merits can be had, and the Court

further finds that the public interest is served by the issuance of a temporary restraining

order to preserve the status quo until a hearing on the merits in order to prevent the

immediate emotional harm and damage to all Plaintiffs, as well as the harm to ongoing

preparation and development of curricula for the upcoming academic year, resulting

from the passage and existence of such a race conscious and discriminatory regulation

in blatant violation of Constitutional norms and legal requirements.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED:

A. That Defendants, and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in

active concert or participation with them, are hereby enjoined and restrained from

taking any action to enforce or implement the “Resolution to Create a Culture of

Kindness and Equal Opportunity for All Students and Staff” (“Resolution”) enacted on

or about June 22, 2022.

B. That Defendants, and their agents, servants, employees, attorneys and those persons in

active concert or participation with them, are hereby further enjoined and restrained

from taking any action to replace the “Resolution to Create a Culture of Kindness and

Equal Opportunity for All Students and Staff” (“Resolution”) enacted on about June

7
Case: 1:22-cv-00374-MRB Doc #: 13-1 Filed: 07/01/22 Page: 8 of 8 PAGEID #: 101

22, 2022 with any similar regulation prior to a hearing by the Court on the

Constitutional merits of the basis for passage of any such replacement regulation.

C. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, pursuant to Federal Civil Rule 65(C), that no bond is

required of Plaintiffs as there is no danger of economic damage to Defendants resulting

from this Order which serves to protect Plaintiffs’ Constitutional rights.

D. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that a hearing shall be had on Plaintiff’s request for a

preliminary injunction on ________________, 2022, at ______ __.m., which shall be

combined with a hearing on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims. This temporary restraining

order shall expire 14 days from its issuance unless extended by the Court for good cause

or unless otherwise agreed to by all Parties to this action.

Issued at ________ a.m./p.m, July ______, 2022.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________________________
Judge Michael R. Barrett