Gardner v. Schumacher
| Decision Date | 13 January 2021 |
| Docket Number | No. CIV 21-0003 JB/SMV,CIV 21-0003 JB/SMV |
| Citation | 547 F.Supp.3d 995 |
| Parties | William C. GARDNER, DDS, Plaintiff, v. Charles SCHUMACHER, DDS; David Warren III, DDS; Burrell Tucker, DDS ; Leo Paul Balderamos, DDS; Jolynn Galvin, DDS ; Ermelinda Baca, RDH; and Melissa Barbra, RDH, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of New Mexico |
Gary W. Boyle, Boyle Law Office, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorney for the Plaintiff
Hector Balderas, Attorney General for the State of New Mexico, Valerie Joe, New Mexico Office of the Attorney General, Santa Fe, New Mexico, Attorneys for the Defendants
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order, filed January 4, 2021 (Doc. 3)("TRO"). The Court held a hearing on January 6, 2021. See Clerk's Minutes at 1, filed January 6, 2021 (Doc. 8). The primary issues are: (i) whether the Court will need to abstain under Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) (" Younger"), if State court proceedings are ongoing; (ii) whether the Court will need to refrain from hearing the case the Rooker-Feldman doctrine if State proceedings have concluded; and (iii) if the Court can hear the case, whether Plaintiff Dr. William C. Gardner meets the four requirements for injunctive relief: (a) whether Dr. Gardner is likely to succeed on the merits of his procedural due process claim that the Defendants -- Dr. Charles Schumacher, Dr. David Warren III, Dr. Burrell Tucker, Dr. Leo Paul Balderamos, Dr. Jolynn Galvin, Ms. Ermelinda Baca, and Ms. Melissa Barbra -- did not allow him to examine original evidence and were not impartial in their decision to revoke his license to practice dentistry in New Mexico, and thereby violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States of America; (b) whether Dr. Gardner can show that he faces irreparable harm because of the Defendants’ procedural due process violations; (c) whether Dr. Gardner's injury outweighs any harm to other parties; and (d) whether that granting the TRO would be in the public interest. The Court concludes: (i) that it will likely need to abstain under Younger from enjoining an ongoing state proceeding because: (a) there are ongoing State administrative proceedings; (b) the regulation and licensure of dentists involves important State interests; and (c) the State proceedings afford Dr. Gardner an adequate opportunity to raise the federal issues; (ii) that, even if the State proceedings are no longer ongoing, the Court would likely have to refrain from hearing the case the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, because the Court cannot serve as an appellate court to State court proceedings; and (iii) that Dr. Gardner does not meet the requirements for injunctive relief, because (a) he is not likely to succeed on the merits of his procedural due process claim, because the Defendants’ use of photocopies of the lost evidence likely did not place Dr. Gardner at risk of erroneous deprivation, because he cannot show prejudice, and the Defendants were likely impartial, because the Defendants do not have a substantial pecuniary interest in the outcome of the case; (b) Dr. Gardner cannot show that he faces irreparable harm, because he delayed in seeking injunctive relief; (c) the balance of equities weighs against Dr. Gardner, because he asserts no harm other than his due process claim, which is not likely to succeed; and (d) the requested injunction would be adverse to the public interest, because public interest in this case is aligned with the Defendants’ important interest in regulating state dental licenses. Accordingly, the Court denies the TRO.
"A temporary restraining order requires the Court to make predictions about the plaintiff's likelihood of success." Herrera v. Santa Fe Pub. Sch., 792 F. Supp. 2d 1174, 1179 (D.N.M. 2011) (Browning, J.). Rule 52 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states: "In granting or refusing an interlocutory injunction, the court must ... state the findings and conclusions that support its action." Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(2). " ‘[T]he findings of fact and conclusions of law made by a court granting a preliminary injunction are not binding at trial on the merits.’ " Herrera v. Santa Fe Pub. Sch., 792 F. Supp. 2d at 1179 (quoting Attorney Gen. of Okla. v. Tyson Foods, Inc., 565 F.3d 769, 776 (10th Cir. 2009) )(alteration in Herrera v. Santa Fe Public Schools only). See Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395, 101 S.Ct. 1830, 68 L.Ed.2d 175 (1981) (); Firebird Structures, LCC v. United Bhd. of Carpenters and Joiners of Am., Local Union No. 1505, 252 F. Supp. 3d 1132, 1140 (D.N.M. 2017) (Browning, J.).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit notes "that when a district court holds a hearing on a motion for preliminary injunction it is not conducting a trial on the merits." Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d 1182, 1188 (10th Cir. 2003). Moreover, "[t]he Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply to preliminary injunction hearings." Heideman v. S. Salt Lake City, 348 F.3d at 1188. Thus, while the Court does the best it can to make good findings from the record that it has and in the short time that it has to make findings, these findings of fact are relevant only for the purpose of determining whether to issue a TRO and do not bind the Court or the parties at trial. Accordingly, the Court finds as follows:
1. The Parties.
1. Dr. Gardner is a resident of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 1, at 1, filed January 6, 2021 (Doc. 3).
2. Defendant Dr. Charles Schumacher is a dentist licensed to practice in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1.
3. Defendant Dr. David Warren III is a dentist licensed to practice in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1.
4. Defendant Dr. Burrell Tucker is a dentist licensed to practice in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1.
5. Defendant Dr. Leo Paul Balderamos is a dentist licensed to practice in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1.
6. Defendant Dr. Jolynn Galvin is a dentist licensed to practice in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1.
7. Defendant Ermelinda Baca is a dental hygienist working in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1-2.
8. Defendant Melissa Barbra is a dental hygienist working in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1-2.
9. The New Mexico Board of Dental Health Care (the "Dental Board") is a nine-member statutory entity consisting of five dentists that the New Mexico Governor appoints; two dental hygienists; and two public members. See N.M.S.A. §§ 61-5A-8(A)-(B).
10. All of the Defendants are Dental Board members. See Complaint ¶ 4, at 1; Boards and Commissions, New Mexico Regulation & Licensing Department, http://www.rld.state.nm.us/boards/Dental_Health_Care_Members_and_Meetings.aspx (last visited January 7, 2021)(listing Defendants Schumacher, Warren, Tucker, Balderamos, Galvin, Baca, and Barbra as Dental Board members).
11. The Dental Board has the power to "enforce and administer the provisions of the Dental Health Care Act[1 ] and the Dental Amalgam Waste Reduction Act.[2 ]" N.M.S.A. § 61-5A-10(B).
12. The Dental Board has the power to "grant, deny, review, suspend and revoke licenses and certificates to practice dentistry," "censure, reprimand, fine and place on probation and stipulation dentists," and "grant, deny, review, suspend and revoke licenses to own dental practices," "in accordance with the Uniform Licensing Act for any cause stated in the Dental Health Care Act and the Dental Amalgam Waste Reduction Act." N.M.S.A. §§ 61-5A-10(F)-(G).
14. Delta Dental of Michigan, an affiliate of Delta Dental of New Mexico (collectively, "Delta Dental"), is a provider of dental insurance to citizens of New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 10, at 2 (asserting this fact); About Delta Dental of Michigan, Delta Dental of Michigan, https://www.deltadentalmi.com/About (last visited January 7, 2021)( that Delta Dental of Michigan is an affiliate of New Mexico).
15. The dentists, Drs. Schumacher, Warren, Tucker, Balderamos, and Galvin, have a premier contract with Delta Dental pursuant to which the dentists receive referrals from Delta Dental. See Complaint ¶ 12, at 2-3.
16. Baca and Barbara, the two dental hygienists, are employed by a dental practice that has a premier contract with Delta Dental. See Complaint ¶ 13, at 3
2. Revocation of Dr. Gardner's License to Practice Dentistry in New Mexico and the Related State Court Proceedings.
17. Up until January 1, 2020, Dr. Gardner was licensed to practice dentistry in New Mexico. See Complaint ¶ 9, at 2 (asserting this fact); In the Matter of: William Dr. Gardner, D.D.S. License No. DD1867, Case No. 18-61-COM (N.M. Bd. Dental Healthcare Nov. 26, 2019), available at http://www.rld.state.nm.us/boards/Dental_Health_Care_Disciplinary_Actions.aspx ("Dental Board Nov. 26 Decision")(revoking Dr. Gardner's license to practice dentistry, effective January 1, 2020).3
18. Dr. Gardner's dispute with the Dental Board dates back to at least 2014, when the Dental Board made findings that Dr. Gardner violated...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- NEXRF Corp. v. Playtika Ltd.
-
Baker v. State
... ... destroyed; and (ii) whether the party offering the evidence ... of the original's contents has acted in bad faith." ... Gardner v. Schumacher, 547 F.Supp.3d 995, 1036 ... (D.N.M. 2021) (citing Cross v. United States, 149 ... F.3d 1190, No. 96-3243, 1998 WL 255054, at *4 ... ...
-
Baker v. State
...destroyed; and (ii) whether the party offering the evidence of the original's contents has acted in bad faith." Gardner v. Schumacher , 547 F.Supp.3d 995, 1036 (D.N.M. 2021) (citing Cross v. United States , 149 F.3d 1190, No. 96-3243, 1998 WL 255054, at *4 (10th Cir. 1998) ) (unpublished ta......