Agnew v. St. Louis Cnty.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:19-cv-03063-SEP |
| Citation | 504 F.Supp.3d 989 |
| Parties | Jennifer AGNEW, et al., Plaintiffs, v. ST. LOUIS COUNTY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
Daniel John Kolde, St. Louis, MO, for Plaintiffs.
Emily B. Allison, St. Louis County Counselors Office, Clayton, MO, for Defendants.
This matter is before the Court on Defendants St. Louis County, Sam Page, Spring Schmidt, and Carole Baskin's Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment. Doc. [8]. The motion is fully briefed. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion to Dismiss will be granted in part and denied in part, and the Motion for Summary Judgment will be denied.
This is a First Amendment challenge to St. Louis County's closure of a volunteer program at a pet shelter. Plaintiffs Jennifer Agnew and Anne Cashel, who had been volunteers with the program, filed suit on November 7, 2019, alleging that its closure was in retaliation for their having publicly criticized the shelter. Doc. [1]. Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss or Alternative Motion for Summary Judgment on January 1, 2020. Doc. [8].
Defendants in this case include St. Louis County (the "County"); Sam Page, the County Executive; Spring Schmidt, a County employee and Director of the Department of Public Health; and Carole Baskin, a County employee and Director of the Department of Public Health.
St. Louis County Animal Care and Control ("ACC") is a governmental office of the St. Louis County Department of Health that maintains and operates the St. Louis County Pet Adoption Center (the "Shelter"). Doc. [1] ¶¶ 11-12. The Shelter has a volunteer program where volunteers participate in various activities, such as walking and interacting with the animals, assisting in adoptions, and performing other daily functions related to animal care. Id. ¶ 17. Around October 25, 2019, Defendants terminated all 425 ACC volunteers, including Plaintiffs Agnew and Cashel, who were both active members in the ACC volunteer program.
Plaintiffs allege they witnessed and documented various instances of Shelter mismanagement, including "unnecessary euthanasia of otherwise adoptable animals; mistreatment of the animals by staff; improper manipulation of euthanasia statistics ... and failures by staff and management to provide humane care and treatment to the Shelter animals." Id. ¶ 25. Plaintiff Agnew submitted open record requests to the County regarding the management of the Shelter, and she made the records publicly available. Id. ¶ 26. Plaintiffs Agnew and Cashel, as well as other ACC volunteers, voiced these concerns at Defendant St. Louis County's Animal Advisory Board meetings and County Council public meetings. Id. ¶ 27. Plaintiffs also communicated with elected County officials, members of the media, and Shelter management, including but not limited to Defendant Schmidt, Defendant Baskin, and Katrina Utz. Id. Plaintiffs claim they engaged in these public acts of speech from December 2018 until October 2019. According to Plaintiffs, after they publicly criticized the Shelter, Defendants began to restrict the privileges of volunteers by denying access to certain rooms, restricting access to animal information, and limiting contact with the animals. Id. ¶ 28.
Defendants have been the subject of negative media coverage criticizing the Shelter, its management, and its "statistical sham." Id. ¶¶ 29-30. At least two media outlets credited Shelter volunteers as their information source. Id. ¶ 30. Plaintiffs claim that those journalists were referring, at least in part, to Plaintiffs’ statements. Id. ¶ 30. Defendant Schmidt responded publicly to the media's statements, both to the press and before the County Council. Id. ¶ 33. On or about October 9, 2019, the Riverfront Times published a lengthy article about the Shelter's mismanagement and poor conditions. Id. ¶ 36. The article reported it interviewed volunteers and County officials, who offered "clashing viewpoints on who deserves the most fault." Id. ¶ 38. On or about October 16, 2019—one week after the Riverfront Times article—Defendant Baskin met with Shelter volunteers and stated that the County is not required to have volunteers, which Plaintiffs understood to be a threat to the ACC volunteer program. Id. ¶¶ 40-41
On or about October 22, 2019, Plaintiff Agnew intervened to stop a dog fight when Shelter employees’ attempts to resolve the situation violated Shelter procedure. Id. ¶ 42. As a result of that intervention, Agnew was suspended. Id. Three days later, on October 25, 2019, Plaintiff Agnew posted on her personal social media page about the Shelter's mismanagement and her suspension. Id. ¶ 46. Both Plaintiffs are affiliated with social media groups that are critical of the Shelter, and both have made posts critical of the Shelter on personal pages and in closed groups. Additionally, Plaintiffs Agnew and Cashel are affiliated with St. Louis County SAVE, a not-for-profit which has publicly criticized the Shelter. Plaintiffs assert that Defendants were "surreptitiously monitoring the social media postings and pages of the volunteers, both personal and group pages," and Plaintiffs cite Defendant Schmidt as stating she and other County employees "had eyes on" the social media pages. Id. ¶¶ 55-56.
On or about October 25, 2019,2 Defendants terminated all Shelter volunteers, approximately 425 people, including Plaintiffs Agnew and Cashel. Id. ¶ 57. The Shelter explained that after this date, prospective volunteers had to submit an application, interview, and, if accepted, attend a restructured orientation. Every volunteer was required to reapply to continue volunteering. Id. ¶ 58. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants terminated the entire volunteer staff "in order to chill and discourage future speech by any volunteer who would potentially seek to return to the volunteer program." Id. ¶ 72. They claim that volunteers under the rebooted program are required to sign an unlawful non-disclosure agreement that obliges them to surrender their cell phones before entering non-public areas of the Shelter to prevent documentation of these areas and the animals. Id. ¶ 78.
Plaintiffs’ Complaint has ten Counts:
Defendants move to dismiss all counts for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1), 12(b)(6). In the alternative, they claim to be entitled to summary judgment on all counts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
Defendants move to dismiss Plaintiffs’ lawsuit under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See U.S. v. Morton , 467 U.S. 822, 828, 104 S.Ct. 2769, 81 L.Ed.2d 680 (1984). Federal subject matter jurisdiction requires the plaintiff to "demonstrate an actual, ongoing case or controversy within the meaning of Article III." Republican Party of Minn. v. Klobuchar , 381 F.3d 785, 789-90 (8th Cir. 2004). "A case or controversy requires a claim that is ripe and a plaintiff who has standing." Archdiocese of St. Louis v. Sebelius , 920 F. Supp. 2d 1018, 1023 (E.D. Mo. 2013). A claim is not ripe if the injury "rests upon contingent future events that may not occur as anticipated." KCCP Trust v. City of N. Kansas City , 432 F.3d 897, 899 (8th Cir. 2005).
To justify dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), "the complaint must be successfully challenged on its face or on the factual truthfulness" of its assertions. Titus v. Sullivan , 4 F.3d 590, 593 (8th Cir. 1993) ; see also Archdiocese of St. Louis , 920 F. Supp. 2d at 1023 (citing Osborn v. United States , 918 F.2d 724, 729 n.6 (8th Cir. 1990) ). In order to evaluate the challenge, the Court must first identify the type of challenge brought by the defendant. Moynihan v. Gutierrez , No. 4:07CV00506 ERW, 2007 WL 2885342, at *2 (E.D. Mo. Sept. 27, 2007). In a factual challenge, the defendant challenges the factual truthfulness of the assertions, and the Court may consider matters outside the pleadings. Osborn , 918 F.2d at 729. In a facial challenge, the defendant claims the complaint "fails to allege an element necessary for subject matter jurisdiction," and the Court presumes true "all of the factual allegations concerning jurisdiction." Titus , 4 F.3d at 593.
The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) is to test the legal sufficiency of a complaint. When considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, the Court assumes all of a complaint's factual allegations to be true and construes all reasonable inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. See Neitzke v....
To continue reading
Request your trial