American Atheists, Inc. et al v. City of Kansas City, Missouri et al

Filing 14

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. Signed on 9/13/16 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes Mitra, Renea)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

AMERICAN ATHEISTS, INC., et al.,
Plaintiffs,
vs.
CITY OF KANSAS CITY,
MISSOURI, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 16-00812-CV-W-ODS

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
INJUNCTION
Pending is Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Doc. #7.
Defendants filed their suggestions in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. Doc. #12.
Plaintiffs did not file reply suggestions and the deadline to do so has passed. Plaintiffs’
motion is now ripe, and the Court denies Plaintiffs’ motion.

I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges the City Council of Kanas City, Missouri passed an
ordinance authorizing Defendant City of Kanas City to expend municipal funds from the
Neighborhood Tourist Development Fund to Modest Miles Ministries, Inc. (MMMI), in aid
and support of the National Baptist Convention’s September 2016 meeting in Kansas
City. Doc. #1, at 1-2. In conjunction with their Complaint, Plaintiffs filed a motion for
preliminary injunction. Doc. #2. Plaintiffs later amended their motion by removing the
City Council as a Defendant. Doc. #7. Plaintiffs sought to enjoin Defendants from
making any payments to MMMI, alleging any payments would violate Plaintiffs’ rights
under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and related articles of the
Missouri Constitution. Doc. #1, at 2. In response to Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary
injunction, Defendants state the City Council passed an ordinance to enter into a
contract with MMMI, but no contract was executed. Doc. #12.

II. DISCUSSION
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, and the burden of
establishing the propriety of an injunction is on the movant.” Watkins Inc. v. Lewis, 346
F.3d 841, 844 (8th Cir. 2003) (internal citation omitted). In deciding whether to grant or
deny a motion for preliminary injunction, the Court must consider four factors: (1) the
movant’s likelihood of success on the merits; (2) the irreparable harm the movant will
suffer if preliminary relief is not granted; (3) the balance of hardships to the parties; and
(4) the impact of the injunction on the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council,
Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. CL Sys. Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th
Cir. 1981) (en banc). The first factor is the most important. Shrink Missouri Gov’t PAC
v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763, 764 (8th Cir. 1998).
Plaintiffs failed to establish a likelihood of success on the merits. Defendants
state no contract was executed, and Plaintiffs do not contest this assertion. The
convention for which Defendants would have expended the municipal funds at issue
occurred September 5 to 9, 2016. Doc. #1, at 6. Because the convention concluded
without the execution of a contract expending municipal funds to MMMI, there is no
conduct to enjoin. Further analysis of the Dataphase factors is unnecessary given the
inability of Plaintiffs to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits. Plaintiffs’
motion for a preliminary injunction is denied.

III. CONCLUSION
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. #7) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATE: September 13, 2016

/s/ Ortrie D. Smith
ORTRIE D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT