Malin v. Mo. Ass'n of Cmty. Task Forces
| Decision Date | 16 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | WD85453 |
| Parties | AARON M. MALIN, Appellant, v. MISSOURI ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TASK FORCES (D/B/A/ ACT MISSOURI), Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
1
AARON M. MALIN, Appellant,
v.
MISSOURI ASSOCIATION OF COMMUNITY TASK FORCES (D/B/A/ ACT MISSOURI), Respondent.
No. WD85453
Court of Appeals of Missouri, Western District, Third Division
May 16, 2023
Appeal from the Circuit Court of Cole County, Missouri The Honorable Cotton Walker, Judge
Before Janet Sutton, Presiding Judge, Cynthia L. Martin, Judge, and Edward R. Ardini, Jr., Judge
Cynthia L. Martin, Judge.
Aaron Malin ("Malin") appeals the trial court's entry of summary judgment in favor of Missouri Association of Community Task Forces ("ACT Missouri"). Malin argues that the trial court committed legal error when it concluded that ACT Missouri is not a quasi-public governmental body for purposes of Missouri's Sunshine Law. Finding no error, we affirm.
Factual and Procedural Background[1]
ACT Missouri is a not-for-profit corporation organized in Missouri under chapter 355. ACT Missouri provides consultation, technical assistance, training, and education to coalitions, otherwise known as community task forces, across the state of Missouri as they relate to substance abuse prevention. ACT Missouri publicly identifies six "Ways We Can Help" in the following areas: "statewide training and resource center; financial services/fiscal management; prevention education and awareness; public policy support and training; advocacy support and training; and media campaign consultation." ACT Missouri's mission is "to serve as the statewide prevention catalyst, empowering individuals and fostering partnerships to promote safe, healthy, and drug-free communities," and this mission has remained the same since ACT Missouri was organized in 1991. ACT Missouri's funding sources have varied over the years, but have included a combination of fees, private donations, federal funds received directly from the federal government, and block grants from the federal government but distributed through the state.
From July 1, 2011 through December 31, 2019, ACT Missouri provided services under a "Contract For Services" with the Missouri Department of Mental Health
("DMH"), and in return, ACT Missouri received federal block grant funds from DMH ("DMH contract"). The DMH contract provided, "Funding for this contract comes from the Substance Abuse Prevention and Treatment Block Grant ["SABG"] and is therefore subject to the federal rules and regulations associated with that grant." ACT Missouri has had no Contract for Services with DMH, and has received no finding from DMH, since December 31, 2019.
On January 9, 2018, Malin sent ACT Missouri a request for public records pursuant to Missouri's Sunshine Law, section 610.010 et seq. ("Sunshine Law").[2] Malin requested "any and all documents relating to funding acquired from [DMH] during fiscal [years 2016 and 2017]." On January 12, 2018, Chuck Daugherty, ACT Missouri's executive director, sent Malin an email stating that his request for records was denied because "ACT Missouri is not a covered entity under Chapter 610, RSMo and more specifically Section 610.010(4)."
Malin filed suit on January 23, 2018 in the Circuit Court of Cole County, alleging that ACT Missouri's failure to act upon his request for public records was a knowing or purposeful violation of the Sunshine Law. Malin alleged that ACT Missouri is a quasipublic governmental body under both sections 610.010(4)(f)a and 610.010(4)(f)b "because its primary purpose is to enter into contracts with public governmental bodies or to engage primarily in activities carried out pursuant to an agreement or agreements with
public governmental bodies and because it is an association that directly accepts the appropriation of money from public governmental bodies."
Three months later, prior to the completion of discovery, ACT Missouri filed a motion for summary judgment, which argued that ACT Missouri is not subject to the Sunshine Law because it is not a quasi-public governmental body as defined in either section 610.010(4)(f)a or section 610.010(4)(f)b. ACT Missouri asserted that for purposes of section 610.010(4)(f)a, the trial court was limited to examining ACT Missouri's statement of purpose contained in its articles of incorporation, and that because its statement of purpose did not include entering into contracts with public governmental bodies or engaging primarily in activities carried out pursuant to an agreement or agreements with public governmental bodies, it is not a quasi-public governmental body under that section. ACT Missouri also argued that it did not qualify as a quasi-public governmental body under the plain language of section 610.010(4)(f)b. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of ACT Missouri, and Malin appealed.
In Malin v. Missouri Association of Community Task Forces, 605 S.W.3d 419 (Mo. App. W.D. 2020) ("Malin I"), this Court affirmed the trial court's conclusion that ACT Missouri was not a quasi-public governmental body under section 610.010(4)(f)b. However, we held that the trial court prematurely granted summary judgment with respect to ACT Missouri's status as a quasi-public governmental body under section 610.010(4)(f)a because the trial court improperly "accepted ACT Missouri's argument that the articles of incorporation provided the only relevant evidence" to make that
determination. Id. at 426. Malin I held that to determine whether an entity is a quasipublic governmental body pursuant to section 610.010(4)(f)a because its primary purpose is to enter into contracts with public governmental bodies or to engage primarily in activities carried out pursuant to an agreement or agreements with public governmental bodies, a trial court must consider not only the purpose statement in the entity's articles of incorporation, but also "present and historical activities of the entity, the nature of any relationship the entity has with public governmental bodies, the governing structure of the entity in addition to other aspects of the organization's existence and operation that would be probative of its purpose." Id. (hereinafter "primary purpose factors"). Because the trial court had not permitted discovery on all of the primary purpose factors, nor considered same in granting summary judgment, the case was remanded for further proceedings. Id. at 427.
On remand, and after the completion of discovery, Malin and ACT Missouri filed cross-motions for summary judgment addressing ACT Missouri's status as a quasi-public governmental body under section 610.010(4)(f)a in light of the primary purpose factors. Each argued there was no genuine dispute as to the existence of material facts and that the only issue to be determined was the application of section 610.010(4)(f)a to the uncontroverted facts as a matter of law.
On May 5, 2022, the trial court granted ACT Missouri's motion for summary judgment and denied Malin's cross-motion for summary judgment ("Judgment"). The trial court considered the uncontroverted facts, made findings with respect of the primary purpose factors based on the uncontroverted facts, and then concluded:
When this court examines the five factors identified by the Court of Appeals as relevant to an organization's purpose . . . it concludes that ACT Missouri's primary purpose is as follows: ACT Missouri provides leadership, support activities, and a network of information related to at-risk behavior and promoting healthy lifestyles. This purpose distinguishes ACT Missouri from a quasi-public government body and thus the application of these factors supports summary judgment in favor of [] ACT Missouri, and denial of [Malin's] summary judgment motion.
The trial court correspondingly denied Malin's claim that ACT Missouri knowingly and purposefully violated the Sunshine Law.
Malin appeals.
Standard of Review
We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Show-Me Inst. v. Office of Admin., 645 S.W.3d 602, 607 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (citation omitted). Summary judgment is appropriate when "there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and . . . the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Rule 74.04(c)(6). In determining whether the entry of summary judgment was appropriate, we "review[ ] the record in the light most favorable to the party against whom judgment was entered, and give[ ] the non-movant the benefit of all reasonable inferences from the record." Show-Me Inst., 645 S.W.3d at 607 (quoting Estes as Next Friend for Doe v. Bd. of Trs. of Mo. Pub. Entity Risk Mgmt. Fund, 623 S.W.3d 678, 686 (Mo. App. W.D. 2021)). A defending party is entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrates one of the following:
(1) facts negating any one of the claimant's elements; (2) that the party opposing the motion has presented insufficient evidence to allow the finding of the existence of any one of the claimant's elements; or (3) that there is no genuine dispute as to the existence of each of the facts necessary to support a properly pleaded affirmative defense.
Channel v. Walker, 655 S.W.3d 362, 370 (Mo. App. W.D. 2022) (quoting Ameristar Jet Charter, Inc. v. Dodson Intern. Parts, Inc., 155 S.W.3d 50, 58-59 (Mo. banc 2005)). "We will affirm the trial court's granting of summary judgment if it is correct as a matter of law on any grounds." Show-Me Inst., 645 S.W.3d at 607 (quoting Behrick v. Konert Farms Homeowners' Ass'n, 601 S.W.3d 567, 573 (Mo. App. E.D. 2020)).
Analysis
Malin raises two points on appeal. Neither point expressly claims error in either the grant or denial of the parties' cross-motions for...
To continue reading
Request your trial