Three years after e-mails outlined a relationship between an Ottoson teacher and a principal, who were later fired, a federal court lawsuit grinds on, with motions to dismiss the case and counterarguments to press forward. If the case goes to trial, it is not expected to be anytime soon.

Filings in the lawsuit, brought in February in US District Court in Boston by attorneys for Stavroula Bouris, the former principal, and ex-teacher Charles E. Coughlin Jr., have kept the case moving this summer to an insistent beat shaped by legal argument. Here is a summary:

On May 27, Magistrate Judge Marianne B. Bowler rejected the town's motions to delay the $7 million lawsuit until arbitrations involving Bouris and Coughlin have been completed. Those motions aimed to have the case tried in state court.

Since that denial, a series if motions filed in June and July -- brought by attorneys for former Superintendent Nate Levenson, School Committee member Jeff Thielman and technology employee Tracy Buck -- represent attempts to dismiss the lawsuit on a number of legal grounds.

In his defense of the Arlington School Committee, attorney Timothy O. Egan, in a June 24 memo, seeks to dismiss the federal lawsuit, citing two arguments:

• The legal doctrine of res judicata. In 2007, the plaintiffs brought suit in state court against the Arlington Public Schools based on the same facts asserted in the suit, and that matter has been dismissed with prejudice.

• The plaintiffs cannot allege that the School Committee’s supervision and training of the individual defendants exhibits the required "willful indifference" to the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights. 

Both arguments are made respect to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and cite counts V (negligence) and VI (violation of civil rights) in the lawsuit.

Read the full text of Egan's memo here >> (.PDF)

On Tuesday, July 27, attorneys for Bouris and Coughlin filed oppositions to the defendants' separate motions to dismiss.

The attorneys outline arguments denying the claims are barred by the doctrine of res judicata and that the School Committee’s supervision and training of the individual defendants did not show "willful indifference" to the plaintiffs’ constitutional rights.

The motions should be denied as the defendants have failed to establish the prerequisites-of-claim preclusion under any of the theories asserted. 

Read the full text of the memo from Mondano and Maria A. Luise here >> (.PDF)

Both memos refer to other motions, too numerous to publish here. All are on file in US District Court in Boston.

Magistrate Judge Bowler has taken the motions and oppositions under consideration and will issue an opinion on them in "due course," as the law says; that is, not in a specific time frame.

Once the judge rules, attorneys involved can file answers.

Attorneys for both sides have asked for a jury trial if there is no dismissal, but a trial would be the last event, following the discovery process (document production and depositions of potential witnesses) and further motions.

Given the docket priorities of the US District Court judge in this case, Mark Wolfe, trial remains in the distant future.

As to events in this case this summer, here is a timeline:

• June 17, 24: Attorney Mark B. Lavoie of McDonough, Hacking & Lavoie of Boston filed a 32-page response on behalf of Thielman. An amended answer was filed a week later. Both answer 277 points in the suit, offer 33 points in defense and seek dismissal.

• June 22: Barry C. Klickstein and Jillian B. Hirsch of Day Pitney of Boston filed a motion seeking to dismiss. Various motions that day, including one seeking a jury trial, filed by Frank Mondano and Maria Luise, representing Bouris and Coughlin, as well as those filed on behalf of the School Committee, including a memo supporting a motion to dismiss, by Egan of Peabody & Arnold of Boston. 

• June 24: Town Counsel Juliana Rice filed a 17-page answer to the lawsuit, citing 10 points in defense and seeking a jury trial.

• July 7: Mondano seeks more time to respond to motion and is granted through July 27.

• July 13: Attorney Cheryl A. Waterhouse of Donovan Hatem of Boston, representing Buck, filed a motion to dismiss and included an 18-page memo.

• July 27: Mondano and Luise filed a series of motions opposing the defendants' move to have the lawsuit dismissed, including 24-page general motion and 15 pages for Buck.

Meanwhile, the Bouris arbitration continues, and the second Coughlin arbitration awaits its conclusion.

May 31: Town's move to delay $7m lawsuit rejected

May 30: Latest total in Bouris/Coughlin legal fees: $564,067 

April 3: Don't delay lawsuit, Coughlin-Bouris attorneys ask court

This story was first published Thursday, July 29, 2010.