UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

WAYNE-WESTLAND COMMUNITY

SCHOOLS,

Plaintiff,

Case Number 14-13904

v. Honorable David M. Lawson

V.S., a minor, and Y.S., his mother,

Defendants.

______________________________________ /

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR DEFAULT JUDGMENT AND

ENJOINING DEFENDANT V.S. FROM ENTERING ANY PREMISES OWNED OR

USED BY THE PLAINTIFF OR ATTENDING ANY SCHOOL EVENT

This matter is before the Court on the plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment. The

Court has reviewed the plaintiff’s submissions and heard oral argument on January 27, 2015. At the

end of the hearing, the Court announced from the bench its decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion

and enter a judgment imposing the injunctive relief sought in the complaint.

I.

On October 9, 2014, plaintiff Wayne-Westland Community Schools filed its verified

complaint and a motion for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction. On that same

date, the Court found that the plaintiff had shown good cause for entry of a temporary restraining

order, and it entered an order restraining defendant V.S. from entering any premises owned or used

by the plaintiff school district or attending any school district related event. The Court ordered the

plaintiff to serve on the defendants copies of the temporary restraining order along with copies of

the complaint and the plaintiff’s motion, and the plaintiff filed certificates of service showing that

service was completed on October 13, 2014. The Court heard oral argument on the plaintiff’s

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 161
motion for preliminary injunction on October 15, 2014. The defendants did not file any papers in

opposition to the complaint or the motion, and neither defendant appeared at the hearing. Counsel

for the plaintiff represented that he had not had contact with either defendant since he spoke to

defendant Y.S. before filing the complaint, and that she indicated to him then that she did not intend

to appear in court or oppose the relief sought in the complaint and motion. The Court found that the

plaintiff had shown good cause for entry of an order continuing the temporary restraining order as

a preliminary injunction and therefore granted the plaintiff’s motion. On December 22, 2014, the

Court granted the plaintiff’s unopposed motion to appoint defendant Y.S. as guardian ad litem for

her minor son, defendant V.S.

To date, the defendants have filed no answer to the complaint or any other papers in this

matter, and upon request by the plaintiff, their defaults duly were entered by the Clerk of Court. On

January 27, 2015, the plaintiff filed certificates of service indicating that on January 21, 2015 it

personally served both defendants with copies of the notices of entry of default and its motion for

entry of default judgment. That same day, the Court held a hearing on the plaintiff’s motion for

default judgment. Counsel for the plaintiff appeared at the hearing, but the defendants did not

appear. The plaintiff represented at the hearing that it received a request from defendant Y.S. to

transmit defendant V.S.’s school records to another educational institution, and that it has had no

further contact with either of the defendants since then.

Because the defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint and the

Clerk has entered their defaults, the Court must accept all well pleaded factual allegations in the

complaint as true. Stooksbury v. Ross, 528 F. App’x 547, 551 (6th Cir. 2013). Charles D. Hallman,

Director of High School Special Education for Wayne-Westland Community Schools, attested to

-2-

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 2 of 6 Pg ID 162
the following facts stated in the plaintiff’s verified complaint. Defendant V.S. was a student in the

Tinkham Senior High School Alternative Program, which is operated by the plaintiff school district. 

He is six feet tall and weighs 250 pounds. V.S. enrolled as a student at the plaintiff’s school in

March 2014. Between March 14, 2014 and April 16, 2014, V.S. (1) physically attacked a fellow

student and several staff members, including spitting at and kicking staff members who tried to

restrain him to protect the student whom he attacked; (2) menaced two staff members with a pen,

by holding it in a stabbing position and refusing to put it down when told; (3) punched a student

while in a classroom, and then punched the principal of the school while leaving the room; and (4)

threatened to rape a female staff member and punched another staff member in the face. As a result

of these violent incidents, V.S.’s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) team held a meeting and

decided to change his educational placement to reduce his hours of attendance to one hour per 

day. After the change in his attendance schedule, V.S. returned to school on May 15, 2014, and that 

same day he attacked a security liason at the school. When he was told to leave the school 

building and not return, V.S. instead tried to force his way back into the building, and four staff 

members were required to hold the school doors shut to keep V.S. out. As a result of the attack 

and V.S.’s refusal to leave school grounds, the entire school building was placed on lockdown. 

Recently, since the current school year has resumed, V.S. has (1) threatened to bring guns to 

school to kill staff members whom he has had incidents with in the past year; (2) made 

racist comments toward African-American staff members; and (3) punched Director Hallman 

in the face. The plaintiff asserted that it does not have the resources or facilities properly 

and safely to address V.S.’s educational needs in his present educational placement.

-3-

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 3 of 6 Pg ID 163
II.

The Court has received no response to the plaintiff’s complaint or motion and no other

submissions from the defendants opposing the relief requested by the plaintiff. Based on the facts

attested to in the verified complaint, which the defendants have not contested, the Court finds that

the plaintiff has made a sufficient showing to justify the issuance of an injunction barring defendant

V.S. from entering any premises owned by the plaintiff or attending any school events.

“The Supreme Court has held that a plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must ‘satisfy

a four-factor test.’” United Steel, Paper & Forestry, Rubber, Mfg. Energy, Allied Indus. & Serv.

Workers Int’l Union, AFL-CIO-CLC v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 750 F.3d 546, 559 (6th Cir. 2006)

(quoting eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, LLC, 547 U.S. 388, 391 (2006)). “Specifically, a plaintiff

must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remedies available at law,

such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the

balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4)

that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” Ibid. (quoting eBay, 547

U.S. at 391) (quotation marks and alterations omitted).

Based on the facts attested to in the verified complaint, the Court finds the following. First,

the plaintiff and its staff face an extreme risk of suffering imminent and irreparable harm if the Court

does not restrain V.S. from entering any premises owned or used by the plaintiff, or attending school

district related event, because the behavior by V.S. attested to in the complaint establishes that he

is a dangerous disabled child and that his continued attendance in his current educational placement

poses an immediate threat to the safety of school staff and other students. Second, there is no

adequate remedy at law for the imminent harms that the plaintiff and its staff likely would suffer,

-4-

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 4 of 6 Pg ID 164
and monetary damages would be inadequate to compensate the plaintiff and its staff for those likely

injuries. Third, the balance of harms in this case favors granting an injunction. As noted, on the one

hand, the plaintiff and its staff face an imminent prospect of suffering serious physical harm. On

the other hand, V.S. will suffer no harm as a result of continuing his education through the online

facilities of the Michigan Virtual Academy program while the plaintiff concludes its proceedings

to determine an alternative educational placement for him. Finally, the public interest favors entry

of an order restraining V.S. from attending school at the plaintiff’s facilities, in order to assure the

physical safety of school staff and students, and to prevent V.S.’s threatening and disruptive

behavior from interfering with the school’s ongoing education of all of its students.

III.

The defendants have failed to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint, and the Court

finds that the plaintiff has established that it is entitled to a judgment imposing the injunctive relief

that it seeks.

Accordingly, for the reasons stated on the record and those set forth above, it is ORDERED

that the plaintiff’s second motion for default judgment [dkt. #29] is GRANTED.

It is further ORDERED that defendant V.S. hereby is PERMANENTLY RESTRAINED

AND ENJOINED from entering any premises owned or used by plaintiff Wayne-Westland

Community Schools, or attending any school district related event.

It is further ORDERED that, if requested by defendant V.S. or his mother Y.S., plaintiff

Wayne-Westland Community Schools must continue the education of defendant V.S. by providing

him access to the school district’s curriculum through the Michigan Virtual Academy (MVA) online

program and must provide him access to designated District staff by telephone to answer any

-5-

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 5 of 6 Pg ID 165
questions that he may have, while the District conducts the evaluations and IEP Team Meetings

necessary to transition defendant V.S. to a more suitable educational placement.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff forthwith shall serve upon the defendants a copy

of this order and the accompanying judgment and file a certificate of service.

It is further ORDERED that the plaintiff’s first motion for default judgment [dkt. #20] is

DISMISSED as moot.

s/David M. Lawson 

DAVID M. LAWSON

United States District Judge

Dated: February 4, 2015

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of the foregoing order was served

upon each attorney or party of record herein by electronic means or first

class U.S. mail on February 4, 2015.

s/Susan Pinkowski 

SUSAN PINKOWSKI

-6-

2:14-cv-13904-DML-RSW Doc # 35 Filed 02/04/15 Pg 6 of 6 Pg ID 166