Parent Father Doe and Parent Mother Doe

Summary

The court held that the statutory qualified-immunity defense and heightened pleading requirement do not apply to the plaintiffs’ state common-law negligence and consortium claims. It further held that pseudonymous pleadings are disfavored but potentially permissible, and that dismissal was not the proper remedy for the pleading defect; the plaintiffs must be allowed to amend. The court affirmed dismissal of the fiduciary-duty claim because a school’s in loco parentis relationship generally creates a duty of ordinary care, not a fiduciary relationship.