Bone et al v. St. Charles County Ambulance District
Filing
20
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 9 ) is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on September 16, 2015. (BRP)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
ANDREW BONE and
CHRISTOPHER BONE,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
v.
ST. CHARLES COUNTY
AMBULANCE DISTRICT,
Defendant.
No. 4:15CV912 RLW
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction pursuant
to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 9). The motion is fully briefed and
ready for disposition. Pursuant to the Joint Status Report filed by the parties, Plaintiffs request a
briefing schedule to argue that voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not moot an
injunction motion. Defendants contend that an injunction would be factually and legally
inappropriate and unnecessary. After review of the motion and related pleadings, the Court will
deny Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Background
Plaintiff Andrew Bone is employed as a paramedic with Defendant St. Charles County
Ambulance District ("SCCAD"). In September 2014, Andrew Bone married Plaintiff
Christopher Bone in California, and the couple has a marriage license from California.
Defendant offers health and other insurance benefits to employees and their spouses.
Christopher Bone lost his job and the health, vision, and dental insurance benefits he received
through that job. On May 1, 2015, Andrew Bone applied for dependent/spousal benefits through
Defendant' s insurance plan for Christopher Bone. Andrew Bone was advised on May 5 that his
application had been approved, effective April 30, 3015.
On May 13, 2015, Plaintiff Christopher Bone was hospitalized for pre-scheduled surgery.
On that same date, human resources contacted Andrew Bone and informed him that on further
review his application for spousal insurance coverage was denied because Missouri did not
recognize same-sex marriages. However, on June 26, 2015, the United States Supreme Court
issued an opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges,_ U.S. _, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015), finding that
couples of the same sex may not be deprived of the right to marry. Id. at 2605. The Supreme
Court also found that a State has no lawful basis to refuse to recognized a same-sex marriage
performed in another State on the basis of its same-sex character. Id. at 2608.
After the Supreme Court handed down its decision, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for
Preliminary Injunction, asking this Court to enjoin Defendant from refusing to recognize
Plaintiffs' legal marriage and ordering the Defendant to offer Plaintiffs the same benefits it offers
to employees with different-sex spouses. However, Defendant informed Plaintiffs ' counsel that
it would honor the Obergefell decision and recognized legally obtained same-sex marriages, as
well as provide to employees with same-sex spouses the same benefits as those offered to
employees with different-sex spouses. Plaintiffs continue to argue that a preliminary injunction
is warranted in this case.
Discussion
To determine whether to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, courts weigh four
factors: "' (1 ) the threat of irreparable harm to the movant; (2) the state of balance between this
harm and the injury that granting the injunction will inflict on other parties litigant; (3) the
probability that movant will succeed on the merits; and (4) the public interest. "' Adam-Mellang
2
v. Apartment Search, Inc., 96 F.3d 297, 299 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL.
Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981)). Further, '"[t]he basis of injunctive relief in federal
courts has always been irreparable harm and inadequacy of legal remedies."' Id (quoting
Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U.S. 500, 506-07 (1959)).
Here, Plaintiffs argues that Defendant continues to withhold health coverage from
Christopher Bone such that Plaintiffs have no adequate legal remedies. Plaintiffs request "an
expeditious ruling from the Court to enter an injunction requiring Defendant to provide the
insurance coverage, to be retroactive and effective May l, 2015." (Pls.' Reply Mem. 2, ECF No.
17) (emphasis in original) Plaintiffs further assert that even if coverage were provided, Plaintiffs
have suffered irreparable harm from Defendant's initial refusal to provide insurance coverage
from the time of Plaintiffs' first request. Defendant, on the other hand, contends that Plaintiffs
cannot demonstrate irreparable harm because the Plaintiffs have the relief they seek, insurance
benefits with an effective date of May 1, 2015. Further, Defendant recognizes same-sex
marriages and provides benefits to all employees' spouses, including same-sex spouses. (Joint
Status Report Ex. 1, ECF No. 19-1)
The Court finds that Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate the requisite irreparable harm
such that injunctive relief is not warranted. Plaintiffs argue that the violation of constitutional
rights constitutes irreparable harm as a matter of law. While Plaintiffs assert that Defendant is
discriminating against them based on their sex and sexual orientation, the Motion to Recognize
Spouse in the Provision of Health, Accident, Disability, Pension Benefits and Other Similar
Benefits for Employees as Including Same Sex Spouses explicitly states that SCCAD is
extending benefits to all legally married same sex spouses of employees. (ECF No. 19-1)
Indeed, given that the Defendant recognizes Plaintiffs' marriage and is providing spousal
3
benefits with an effective date of May 1, 2015, Plaintiffs are unable to show irreparable harm.
(Joint Status Report ii 4, ECF No. 19) In light of these facts, the Court fails to see the risk of any
'" certain and great' harm that could be prevented by an injunction." S.J W ex rel. Wilson v.
Lee's Summit R- 7 Sch. Dist. , 696 F.3d 771 , 779 (8th Cir. 2012) (quoting Iowa Utils. Bd. v. Fed.
Commc 'ns Comm 'n, 109 F.3d 418, 425 (8th Cir. 1996)).
Further, Plaintiffs have an adequate remedy at law. Plaintiffs assert that Christopher
Bone has suffered adverse consequences including the inability to afford medications, the
inability to pay medical bills, and a negatively impacted credit rating. Plaintiffs maintain that
these problems will continue to exist until Defendant provides insurance coverage retroactively.
Aside from the fact that Defendant has provided the relief requested by Plaintiffs, any other harm
suffered by Plaintiffs could be adequately addressed through monetary damages. See CD!
Energy Servs. V West River Pumps, Inc., 567 F.3d 398, 403 (8th Cir. 2009) (stating that the
harm that already occurred could be remedied through damages); Midwest Theatres Corp. v.
IMAX Corp., No. 08-5823(DSD/SRN), 2008 WL 4832598, at *2 (D. Minn. Nov. 3, 2008)
(finding any harm could be adequately remedied through monetary damages where plaintiff was
able to calculate and/or quantify past and future damages).
The Court notes that "a failure to demonstrate irreparable harm, standing alone, may be a
sufficient basis to deny preliminary injunctive relief." Caballo Coal Co. v. Ind. Mich. Power
Co., 305F.3d 796, 800 (8th Cir. 2002) (citing Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 114 n.9). Plaintiffs here
have not met their burden of demonstrating "that irreparable injury is likely in the absence of an
injunction." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 22 (2008) (citations omitted). To
the contrary, Defendant has already provided the exact remedy Plaintiffs seek in their Motion for
4
Preliminary Injunction, recognition of Plaintiffs' legal marriage and the provision of benefits to
employees and their same-sex and different-sex spouses. 1
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction (ECF
No. 9) is DENIED.
Dated this 16th day of September, 2015.
RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1
While Plaintiffs argue that voluntary cessation of unlawful conduct does not moot an
injunction motion, the Court notes that the Eighth Circuit recently stated, "assurances of
compliance with Obergefell do not moot the case." Waters v. Ricketts, _ F.3d _ , 2015 WL
4730972, at *2 (8th Cir. Aug. 11 , 2015). However, the court also instructed the district court to
consider the assurances and actions and the scope of any injunction, based on Obergefell and
Rule 65(d). Id. Here, Defendant has issued a motion changing its policy with regard to benefits
to employees and their same-sex spouses and has provided coverage to Plaintiffs effective May
1, 2015. As such, the Court finds that Defendant has met its "formidable burden of showing that
it is absolutely clear the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur."
Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Envtl. Servs. (J'OC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 190 (2000).
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?