R.

Jeremy Adamson (12818)

Clayton J. Hadlock (18397)
KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC
50 W. Broadway, 10th Floor
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Telephone: (801) 994-4646
Fax: (801) 758-7436
jadamson@kba.law
chadlock@kba.law

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

IN THE FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

UTAH COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH

CRYSTAL MUHLESTEIN, JORDAN

MUHLESTEIN, ALICIA ALBA,
SAMANTHA SCHOLES, CHRISTIAN
ALLRED, EMILY MITCHELL, SIO GALI,
SETH COX, CHAD HUNSAKER, MARIA
ISABEL GOMES, SARA HOLMAN,
JOSHUA HOLMAN, TARYN TRAYLOR,
CHRISTINA PARKER, ESTHER PATCH,
LYNDON BRITTNER, KATRINA
BRITTNER, ROCHELLE RANEY,
BRIANN CHRISTENSEN, ASHLEY LEE,
SPENCER PETERSON, EMILY
COMPLAINT
PETERSON, SARAH LEWIS, RUSTIN
LEWIS, STACY JENSEN, ASHLEY
Case No.
MCKINNON, VANESSA ALVES,
ANTONIA SOUZA, SHELLENA TIETJEN,
Judge:
MARIA MASHA HUNSAKER, LARA
LEIGH RAULSTON, JARED RAULSTON,
Tier 2
AND LEILANI TERRY CHRISTIANSEN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ALPINE SCHOOL DISTRICT, ALPINE

DISTRICT BOARD OF EDUCATION AND
SUPERINTENDENT SHANE J.
FARNSWORTH,

Defendants.
 Crystal Muhlestein, Jordan Muhlestein, Alicia Alba, Samantha Scholes, Christian Allred,

Emily Mitchell, Sio Gali, Seth Cox, Chad Hunsaker, Maria Isabel Gomes, Sara Holman, Joshua

Holman, Taryn Traylor, Christina Parker, Esther Patch, Lyndon Brittner, Katrina Brittner,

Rochelle Raney, BriAnn Christensen, Ashley Lee, Spencer Peterson, Emily Peterson, Sarah Lewis,

Rustin Lewis, Stacy Jensen, Ashley Mckinnon, Vanessa Alves, Antonia Souza, Shellena Tietjen,

Maria Masha Hunsaker, Lara Leigh Raulston, Jared Raulston, and Leilani Terry Christiansen

(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) hereby complain and allege against Defendants Alpine School District,

Alpine District Board of Education, and Superintendent Dr. Shane J. Farnsworth (collectively the

“District” or “Defendants”) as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs in this case are parents of children who attend school in the Alpine School

District that would be affected by school closures and boundary changes being executed by the

Defendant unlawfully. Utah law requires school districts to provide 120 days’ notice, two public

comment opportunities at board meetings, and at least one public hearing where the public can be

heard regarding any proposal to close a school or change a boundary before approving or

implementing plans to close schools or change boundaries. The District has failed to provide

appropriate notice and public comment opportunities regarding its intention to close five schools

and modify school boundaries within the Alpine School District before voting to approve school

closures and taking steps to close those schools. And, despite receiving notice that they were not

complying with state law, the District has wrongfully elected to move forward with the closure of

two schools in June 2023, less than two months from now. Plaintiffs seek an injunction preventing

the District from proceeding with the school closures and boundary modifications until it has

properly complied with Utah law, as well as a declaratory judgment stating that the District has

2
failed to comply with the requirements of Utah law in connection with the decision it has made to

close the schools and modify the boundaries at issue.

PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE

2. Crystal Muhlestein is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

3. Jordan Muhlestein is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

4. Alicia Alba is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

5. Samantha Scholes is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Lehi

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

6. Christian Allred is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Lindon

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

7. Emily Mitchell is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

8. Sio Gali is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

3
Defendant’s unlawful activities.

9. Seth Cox is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Aspen Elementary

School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the Defendant’s

unlawful activities.

10. Chad Hunsaker is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Valley View

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

11. Maria Isabel Gomes is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky

Mountain Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected

by the Defendant’s unlawful activities.

12. Sara Holman is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

13. Joshua Holman is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

14. Taryn Traylor is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Lehi Elementary

School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the Defendant’s

unlawful activities.

15. Christina Parker is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky

Mountain Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected

by the Defendant’s unlawful activities.

16. Esther Patch is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

4
Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

17. Lyndon Brittner is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

18. Katrina Brittner is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

19. Rochelle Raney is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

20. BriAnn Christensen is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Orchard

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

21. Ashley Lee is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor Elementary

School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the Defendant’s

unlawful activities.

22. Spencer Peterson is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky

Mountain Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected

by the Defendant’s unlawful activities.

23. Emily Peterson is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

5
 24. Sarah Lewis is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

25. Rustin Lewis is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

26. Stacy Jensen is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Windsor

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

27. Ashley Mckinnon is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Lehi

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

28. Vanessa Alves is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

29. Antonia Souza is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Rocky Mountain

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

30. Shellena Tietjen is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Valley View

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

31. Maria Masha Hunsaker is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Valley

View Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

6
Defendant’s unlawful activities.

32. Lara Leigh Raulston is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Valley

View Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

33. Jared Raulston is a resident of Utah County with a child attending Valley View

Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected by the

Defendant’s unlawful activities.

34. Leilani Terry Christiansen is a resident of Utah County with a child attending

Valley View Elementary School, a school within the Alpine School District that would be affected

by the Defendant’s unlawful activities.

35. Plaintiffs are all taxpayers in Utah County and the State of Utah.

36. Plaintiffs all have children who attend schools in the District.

37. Plaintiffs’ children will be directly affected by the District’s proposed school

closures and boundary changes.

38. Defendant Alpine School District is a school district that provides public education

to school-aged students within Utah County, Utah. The District is a public school system organized

and maintained under the laws of the State of Utah.

39. The Alpine District Board of Education (the “Board”) is an elected body

responsible for the management of the District, including boundary changes and school closures.

40. The Board has invested power in Superintendent Dr. Shane J. Farnsworth

(“Superintendent”) to enforce its policies and decisions.

41. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78A-5-102.

42. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78B-3-307 because the

7
District sits in Utah County and the events and actions underlying Plaintiffs’ causes of action

primarily occurred in Utah County.

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

The Closure Statute

43. Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21) (the “Closure Statute”) states as follows:

1. Before closing a school or changing the boundaries of a school,
a local school board shall:
1. at least 120 days before approving the school closure or
school boundary change, provide notice to the following
that the local school board is considering the closure or
boundary change:
1. parents of students enrolled in the school, using
the same form of communication the local school
board regularly uses to communicate with parents;
2. parents of students enrolled in other schools within
the school district that may be affected by the closure
or boundary change, using the same form of
communication the local school board regularly uses to
communicate with parents; and
3. the governing council and the mayor of the municipality
in which the school is located;
2. provide an opportunity for public comment on the
proposed school closure or school boundary change
during at least two public local school board meetings;
and
3. hold a public hearing as defined in Section 10-9a-103 and
provide public notice of the public hearing as described
in Subsection (21)(b).
2. The notice of a public hearing required under Subsection
(21)(a)(iii) shall:
1. indicate the:
1. school or schools under consideration for closure or
boundary change; and
2. the date, time, and location of the public hearing;
2. at least 10 days before the public hearing, be:
1. published:
I.in a newspaper of general circulation in the area;
and
II.on the Utah Public Notice Website . . .; and
B. posted in at least three public locations within the
municipality in which the school is located on the school

8
 district’s official website, and prominently at the school;
and
iii. at least 30 days before the public hearing described in
Subsection (21)(a)(iii), be provided as described in
Subsections (21)(a)(i)(A). (Emphasis added.)

44. The District failed to follow this statutory requirement when it approved and began

implementing the closure of five elementary schools and boundary changes for thirteen schools

within the District before providing proper notice or public comment opportunities.

The District’s Boundary Study

45. On or about December 8 and 12, 2022, the District sent emails (the “December

Emails”) notifying stakeholders that they were conducting a districtwide boundary study. The

email stated as follows:

Study outcomes may result in boundary changes impacting some

schools for the 2023 school year, while others may take effect in
2024 or at a later date. While the boundary changes may impact a
few schools throughout the district, parents must be made aware that
we are studying all enrollments and associated boundaries.

46. The December Emails did not mention even the prospect of a single school closure

in 2023—only potential boundary changes. The email also failed to mention which schools might

be affected, opting for a general, vague statement regarding “all enrollments and associated

boundaries.” Despite the obvious deficiencies of the December Emails and subsequent

communications, the District insisted that the December Emails met the Closure Statute’s

requirements. It did not. Specifically, the December Emails

a. lack a description of a specific school closure or boundary change such that

“parents of students enrolled in the school” would be on notice of the closure or boundary

change that would impact their child; see Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21)(a)(i)(A);

b. provide no indication of which parents “may be affected by the closure or

9
 boundary change;” see Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21)(a)(i)(B);

c. fail to “provide an opportunity for public comment on the proposed school

closure or school boundary change during at least two public local school board meetings;”

see Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21)(a)(ii); and

d. do not recognize “a public hearing” or “public notice of the public hearing

. . . indicat[ing] the (A) school or schools under consideration for closure or boundary

change; [or] (B) the date, time, and location of the public hearing;” see Utah Code § 53G-

4-402(21)(b)(i);

47. On February 14, 2023, the District met and was presented with the results of the

boundary study initiated on December 8, 2022. During that meeting, members of the Board

(“Board Members”) asked, “Is it the recommendation of the district leadership team to announce

all of these at the same time . . . or waiting the 120 days on each one?”

48. In that same hearing, the Superintendent stated,

Beginning of March we will start the specific boundary studies . . .

involve the community and make some recommendations . . .. We
will need to start that process . . . so that the hundred . . . uh, so that
they [the public] would have sufficient time to give feedback and
have hearings so that in April we can announce those decisions.

49. These statements demonstrate that as of February 14, the District knew the 120-day

notice period had not been initiated for the proposed boundary changes or school closures.

50. Two weeks later, on February 28, 2023, the Board convened once again, and the

proposed closures and boundary changes were presented to the public. At that time, a majority of

the board voted to (1) close Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon, and Lehi elementary

schools, and (2) implement the associated boundary and program changes to be effective in the

10
23-24 school year. 1 It is important to note that at that time, proper notice had not been provided,

no public hearings following such notice had been held, and the vote to close the schools was taken

before the required 120-day period had passed (even if proper notice had been given—which it

hadn’t). Each of these were a violation of the School Closure Statute (“a local school board shall

at least 120 days before approving the school closure or school boundary change…”).

51. While discussing the motion to close schools, Board Member Mark Clement stated

“I would like to start the process of public input,” and Board Member Ada Wilson stated “I would

invite our public to participate in a dialogue about how to solve these issues.” After the board

approved the motion to close schools, Superintendent Farnsworth stated, “We will begin the

process of notification.” These statements all indicate that the District had not yet notified or started

the 120 day public input process even though they had just approved the school closures.

The March 1 Notice of Closure and Boundary Change

52. At the conclusion of the February 28 board meeting, Board Member Mark Clement

stated “I would like to start the process of public input,” and Superintendent Farnsworth stated

“We will begin the process of notification.”

53. The following day, on March 1, 2023, the District sent an email (the “March 1

Email”) notifying the public of the following actions:

a. The District would be closing the following elementary schools (collectively, the

“Proposed School Closures”) in 2023-24:

1. Lehi Elementary School

1
The specific language of the motion was as follows: ““I
move to begin a formal process in accordance
with state statutory requirements of closing Sharon, Windsor, Valley View, Lindon, and Lehi
elementary schools and implement the associated boundary and program changes to be effective
in the 23-24 school year.”

11
 2. Valley View Elementary School

3. Lindon Elementary School

4. Windsor Elementary School

5. Sharon Elementary School

b. The District would move forward with boundary changes affecting the following

schools (collectively, the “Proposed New School Boundaries”) in 2023-24:

1. New North Point Elementary School

2. River Rock Elementary School

3. Meadow Elementary School

4. Snow Springs Elementary School

5. Central Elementary School

6. Grovecrest Elementary School

7. Rocky Mountain Elementary School

8. Cascade Elementary School

9. Orchard Elementary School

10. Foothill Elementary School

11. Northridge Elementary School

12. Bonneville Elementary School

13. Centennial Elementary School

54. If the Proposed School Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries are

implemented, it will have significant negative effects in the community, including

a. making schools harder to access given the lack of a bussing plan;

b. requiring greater travel time for children to go to and from school;

12
 c. negatively impacting children’s safety as they travel greater distances to and

from school;

d. harming lower income communities and non-English speakers; and

e. diminishing language and other school programs.

55. The March 1 Email also explained that stakeholders could share their input via a

feedback button on the District website. They informed stakeholders that there would be five

upcoming public input open houses and two school board meetings for public comment during the

month of March, and that a public hearing would be held on April 18, 2023. Thus, even though

the Closure Statute specifically requires public input before any vote to close the schools, the

District did not provide for public input until after they had already voted to close the schools and

change the boundaries—again, a per se violation of the Closure Statute.

56. Prior to the March 1 Email, the District made no specific proposals and gave no

notification regarding the Proposed School Closures or the Proposed New School Boundaries. In

addition, prior to the March 1 Email, the District had not published a boundary website, created a

feedback mechanism, or held any public comment meetings.

57. The March 1 Email was the first District communication to specify the closure or

boundary changes of the Proposed School Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries.

58. Under the Closure Statute, the District was required to wait at least 120 days – or

until June 29, 2023 – before approving the Proposed School Closures or Proposed New School

Boundaries. Instead, they approved the closures on February 28, 2023.

59. Further, as noted below, the Proposed School Closures and Proposed New School

Boundaries were modified on March 29, 2023 when the Defendants added Manila Elementary to

the list of schools that were to be subject to the boundary change. That addition would also

13
necessitate a change to the Proposed New School Boundaries. As such, the notice provided on

March 1, 2023 is insufficient to satisfy the notice requirements under Utah law.

The District’s Noncompliance with the Closure Statute

60. The District did not comply with the 120-day notice requirement. Instead,

immediately after sending the March 1 Email, District employees began implementing the

District’s illegal February 28, 2023 approval to close the schools and modify the boundaries.

61. Just two days later, on March 3, 2023, Board President Sara Hacken told parents

the decision regarding the Proposed School Closures was “final,” and their input could not

influence the decision. Such a situation, which discounts the value of public input, is exactly what

the Closure Statute is meant to prevent. She stated that all the parents could hope for was to

influence how the new boundaries might be adjusted, and they had only until the April 18, 2023

public hearing to do so.

62. At the March 28, 2023 board meeting, Board member Mark Clement stated that he

believed that it was too late to wait to close the schools because “too many things had been set in

motion” regarding the school closures and boundary changes and expressed that he wished he

could go back in time and vote to delay a year, but he felt it was “too late.”

63. The District re-assigned each of the principals of the five schools listed for closure

and did not announce any replacement.

64. District employees also began encouraging teachers at schools who were part of the

Proposed School Closures to request transfers and apply for jobs at other schools.

65. District employees told the PTAs and School Community Councils (“SCCs”) to

not hold their annual leadership elections for the upcoming year.

66. District employees directed SCCs to not apply for Trust Land funds.

14
 67. These actions take the violation of the Closure Statute’s requirement that the

District wait to approve any school closures or boundary changes until the 120-day notice-and-

comment period lapses to the next level. Specifically, it is not merely a violation that they vote to

close school, it is a violation of implementing the illegally voted upon closure.

The District Continues to Wrongly Insist That They Complied with the Closure

Statute

68. Following the District’s obvious failures to comply with the Closure Statute,

concerned parents attempted to resolve the statutory violation with the Board.

69. On March 22, 2023, a concerned parent emailed the District and received a response

from Kraig Brinkerhoff, the head of the District’s legal team, stating that March 1 was the first day

of the 120-day notice-and-comment period. Brinkerhoff later retracted this statement after

speaking with other District staff. This was before the Defendants later modified the proposals on

March 29, 2023 which would require a new notice and a new 120-day notice-and-comment period.

70. After concerned parents insisted that the District comply with the Closure Statute’s

requirements, the Superintendent responded as follows:

There were several questions in public comments raised about the

timeline that the board of education is following and whether or not
that aligns with state statute. We did reach out and . . . the Attorney
General . . . found that our efforts have exceeded the expectations
outlined in state statute, that we have given due notice and that that
December notification actually qualifies for the 120 day start of that
communication.

As noted below, the Attorney General’s office later asked the District to retract such

representations.

71. The Superintendent made this statement despite the fact that the December Emails

contained no details regarding which schools might be closed or which boundaries might be

15
affected. The December Emails further provided no notice of public hearings or any feedback

mechanism through which parents could submit comments. The lack of detail in the December

Emails also made it impossible for parents to know whether closures or boundary changes would

impact them. Indeed, the first specific proposals were not made until March 1, 2023 and were

replaced by new proposals on March 29, 2023.

72. Board Member Mark Clement then stated as follows:

We’ve had lots of input from our public in the last few weeks. . .
During the Board meeting on February 28, . . . the Board . . . voted
to move ahead during the 23-24 school year. . . I think I made a
mistake. I think I should have voted to follow the staff
recommendation and wait for the next year. . . I didn’t realize how
hard it would be to finalize a plan for those schools. . . And I didn’t
realize how strong the advantages were for waiting for another year.
. . I’ve realized that we should have involved [principals] early in
the whole planning process because they have some unique insights.
. . I’ve also heard from parents a lot that they needed time. . . to plan
their life. I’ve heard that loud and clear. I’ve also heard that cities
need time to plan. . . I also appreciate that the accelerated timeline
caused stress on district leadership. . . it’s not easy to understand
how [Dual Language Immersion configurations] integrate with
schools, and it would maybe have been easier to study that for
another year. And I think I’ve heard from many parents that they
just feel like this decision was rushed that they’re. . . not feeling that
their input is being used to actually make the decision of whether or
not to close schools. . . And so even though I wish I could go back
and remake that decision, it’s not possible to do that. . . The only
option is do we try to pause this, wait for another year, or do we
move forward? . . . I think we need to realize it would be difficult to
find a way of unwinding all of the changes that have been
made…now that we’ve moved forward I really think we need to stay
the course to implement those changes in the 23-24 school year.”

73. On March 29, 2023, the District posted a notice on the boundary study website

(“Boundary Study Website”) stating that it had complied with all legal requirements associated

with the Proposed Schools Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries, and that the Attorney

General had approved of their processes.

16
 74. Later that day, the Attorney General’s Office made the following statement:

“We’ve asked Alpine School District to . . . remove the language in question. The Attorney

General’s office has not provided any such approval.” The District subsequently removed the

statement that the Attorney General’s Office had approved the process from the Boundary Study

Website.

75. Also on March 29, 2023, the District uploaded plans for the Proposed School

Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries. As noted above, one of the plans involved a new

school, Manilla Elementary, that was not initially listed as being subject to the Proposed New

School Boundaries. The district sent no notice of the additional school and has yet to provide the

necessary notice to start the 120-day notice-and-comment period.

76. On March 30, 2023, Utah state legislators stated they would examine the District’s

compliance with the Closure Statute during their next Administrative Rules Review and General

Oversight Committee meeting on May 18, 2023.

77. After receiving significant pushback from parents regarding the Proposed School

Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries, the District held a public hearing and Board

meeting on April 18, 2023. The following events occurred in that meeting:

a. The Board heard hours of comments from fifty-four parents explaining the

problems with the substance and procedure of the Board’s Proposed School

Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries.

b. Despite the parent comments, the Board voted to “continue” study of the formal

boundary and closure study recommendations associated with Valley View and

17
 Sharon Elementary Schools for the 2023-24 school year. 2

c. The Board voted to continue study of the formal boundary and closure study

recommendations associated with Windsor, Lindon, and Lehi Elementary Schools

for the 2024-25 school year.

78. In sum, the District’s comments in Board meetings indicate that they were well

aware of the Closure Statute. Despite this and the obvious deficiencies of the December Emails

and subsequent failures to comply with the Closure Statute, the District has unlawfully approved

and taken steps to implement the Proposed School Closures and Proposed New School Boundaries.

79. The District prematurely and improperly voting on the closures and then illegally

implementing those closures created irreversible harm and tainted the entire process. Specifically,

it undermined the purpose of the Closure Statute (to get public input before voting to close), and

it set the district on a course that it will be loath to reverse due to the actions already taken that

have disrupted parents, teachers, and administrators. In essence, they have tied themselves into a

Gordian Knot, and they don’t know how to untie it. Ratification cannot fix the damage already

done. This Court should cut through the knot created by the District and force the district to undo

each and every action taken in violation of the Closure Statute to the greatest extent possible, and

once that is complete, start over.

FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Injunction)

80. Plaintiffs incorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully alleged herein.

81. Defendants violated Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21) by

a. failing to provide 120 days’ notice of a school closure or boundary

2
The term “continue” as used in the language of the board’s motions on April 18, 2023 continues to confuse board
members and citizens alike. Specifically, the district has been coy as to whether this was used in the legal parlance
of “delay to a later date” or whether it was used in the common parlance of “go on with a particular action” which in
this case is related to the vote to close schools made on February 28, 2023.

18
 change to parents of students enrolled in the school or parents of students enrolled

in other schools within the school district that may be affected by the closure or

boundary change before approving or taking action to close schools;

b. failing to provide an opportunity for public comment on the

proposed school closure or school boundary change during at least two public local

school board meetings before approving or taking action to close schools; and

c. failing to hold a public hearing and provide public notice of the

public hearing in accordance with the requirements listed in Utah Code § 53G-4-

402(21)(b) before approving or taking action to close schools.

82. Plaintiffs request that the District be required to undo the actions they have

prematurely taken to close schools and change boundaries prior to initiating a new attempt to close

schools or change boundaries under the Closure Statute.

83. Plaintiffs further request that Defendants be enjoined from approving the current

Proposed School Closures or the Proposed New School Boundaries and taking actions consistent

with such approval – including closing schools or modifying school boundaries – until it restarts

and promptly complies with the relevant statutory requirements.

SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF

(Declaratory Judgment)

84. Plaintiffs reincorporate the foregoing allegations as if fully alleged herein.

85. Plaintiffs request that the Court issue a declaratory judgment stating the following:

a. Defendants’ approval and actions to implement the Proposed School Closures

and Proposed New School Boundaries violated Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21).

b. The December Emails did not comply with the requirements of Utah Code §

53G-4-402(21).

19
 c. The Defendants have failed to provide adequate notice to start the 120-day

notice-and-comment period required by Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21).

d. The Defendants may not approve the closure of any school in the District until

restarting and properly complying with the relevant statutory requirements.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, based upon the foregoing, Plaintiffs pray for judgment and equitable relief

against Defendant as follows:

1. An order requiring the District undo the actions they have taken to close schools and

change boundaries prior to initiating a new attempt to close schools or change

boundaries under the Closure Statute.

2. An order enjoining Defendants from approving the Proposed School Closures and

Proposed New School Boundaries and preventing them from taking actions consistent

with such approval, such as school closures or boundary modifications.

3. A declaratory judgment stating that Defendants violated Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21),

that the December Emails did not comply with the requirements of Utah Code § 53G-

4-402(21), and that the Defendants have not provided adequate notice to start the 120-

day notice-and-comment period required by Utah Code § 53G-4-402(21).

4. An award to Plaintiffs of its costs and expenses in this action;

5. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and appropriate.

DATED April 28, 2023.

KUNZLER BEAN & ADAMSON, PC

/s/ R. Jeremy Adamson____

R. Jeremy Adamson
Clayton J. Hadlock

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

20