Opinion ID: 1607226
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Dismissal of the Board of Trustees

Text: The appropriate standard of review of a trial court's grant of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is ``whether, when the allegations of the complaint are viewed most strongly in the pleader's favor, it appears that the pleader could prove any set of circumstances that would entitle [him] to relief. In making this determination, this Court does not consider whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but only whether [he] may possibly prevail.'' Rester v. McWane, Inc., 962 So.2d 183, 185 (Ala.2007) (quoting EB Invs., L.L.C. v. Atlantis Dev., Inc., 930 So.2d 502, 507 (Ala. 2005), quoting in turn other cases).
J.K. and P.K. first argue that the trial court erred in dismissing the members of the board of trustees as defendants only two weeks after their action was filed. In their motion to dismiss, the trustees argued that they were entitled to immunity under § 10-11-3, Ala.Code 1975, which provides: Any noncompensated officer of a qualified entity shall be immune from suit and not subject to civil liability arising from the conduct of the affairs of such qualified entity except when the act or omission of such officer, which gives rise to a cause of action, amounts to willful or wanton misconduct or fraud, or gross negligence. Provided however, such immunity shall not, except to such extent as may otherwise be provided by law, extend to the qualified entity, to a for-profit subsidiary of such qualified entity or to the officers of such for-profit subsidiary but only to the qualified entity's officers as defined in this chapter. Nothing contained herein shall be construed to immunize the corporate entity or qualified entity for the acts or omissions of noncompensated officers as defined in this chapter. A qualified entity is defined as [a]ny not-for-profit corporation, association or organization which is exempt from federal income taxation under 501(c) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. Section 10-11-2(1)(a), Ala.Code 1975. [5] J.K. and P.K. contend that the trustees are not entitled to the qualified immunity provided by § 10-11-3 because their complaint alleged that the board of trustees had acted negligently/wantonly. Therefore, we must determine whether J.K. and P.K. alleged any cause of action that could overcome the trustees's claim of immunity. J.K. and P.K. named the board of trustees as defendants in four of the six claims asserted in the complaint. The only claims that could arguably overcome the trustees' invocation of immunity are the claims in Counts one and six of the complaint, alleging, as to the trustees, negligent/wanton conduct and negligent/wanton failure to supervise. J.K. and P.K. do not adequately demonstrate in their brief to this Court how the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice their claims against the trustees. They cite Shaddix v. United Ins. Co. of America, 678 So.2d 1097 (Ala. Civ.App.1995), for the general proposition that a dismissal based upon a failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted is properly granted only when the plaintiff cannot prove any set of facts that would entitle the plaintiff to relief. Although this accurately describes the legal standard with which a court evaluates a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion, J.K. and P.K. do not point to any set of facts that would entitle them to relief on their claims that the trustees acted wantonly by dismissing S.K. and K.K. as students. [6] J.K. and P.K. merely cite to page 7 of their complaint, where they allege that the defendants, including the members of the board of trustees, owed the Plaintiffs' minor children the duty to fairly and impartially promulgate rules governing honor, personal conduct, and academic standards and avoid arbitrary and capricious decisions in enforcing those rules, and that UMS-Wright and the members of the board of trustees wantonly breached those duties by expelling the children based upon the conduct of a third party. These allegations do not demonstrate that the members of the board of trustees were or could have been wanton in the performance of their alleged responsibilities. Not only do J.K. and P.K. not describe with any specificity conduct of the trustees that they consider to have been wanton, but they also fail to cite any statute or caselaw that defines wantonness, and they do not illustrate how the actions by the members of the board of trustees could satisfy any such definition. `Where an appellant fails to cite any authority, we may affirm, for it is neither our duty nor function to perform all the legal research for an appellant.' McCutchen Co. v. Media General, Inc., 988 So.2d 998, 1004 (Ala.2008) (quoting Henderson v. Alabama A & M Univ., 483 So.2d 392, 392 (Ala.1986), quoting in turn Gibson v. Nix, 460 So.2d 1346, 1347 (Ala.Civ.App.1984)). Because J.K. and P.K. have not provided us with a standard against which to evaluate the trustees' allegedly wanton behavior in expelling the children on the basis of a third party's actions, the trial court's judgment on this issue is affirmed. J.K. and P.K. also argue that the motion to dismiss filed by the members of the board of trustees should have been treated as a motion for a summary judgment, because in ruling on the motion the trial court considered matters outside the pleadings. J.K. and P.K. cite Phillips v. AmSouth Bank, 833 So.2d 29 (Ala.2002), for the proposition that a trial court commits reversible error if it converts a Rule 12(b)(6), Ala. R. Civ. P., motion into a motion for a summary judgment under Rule 56, Ala. R. Civ. P., and enters a summary judgment without affording the opposing party a reasonable opportunity to conduct discovery. See Rule 12(c), Ala. R. Civ. P. In Phillips, this Court stated that when a motion to dismiss is converted into a motion for a summary judgment, the nonmovant is entitled to receive `(1) adequate notice that the trial court intends to treat the motion as one for summary judgment and (2) a reasonable opportunity to present material in opposition.' 833 So.2d at 31 (quoting Graveman v. Wind Drift Owners' Ass'n, 607 So.2d 199, 202 (Ala.1992)). However, J.K. and P.K. do not argue that the members of the board of trustees submitted additional materials with their motion to dismiss. In fact, the materials in the record indicate that the trustees did not submit any accompanying affidavits or documents with their motion to dismiss. Therefore, Phillips does not support J.K. and P.K.'s argument. Because J.K. and P.K. have not adequately articulated how the trial court erred in dismissing with prejudice their claims against the members of the board of trustees, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of those claims. [7]