Small Hearts Daycare Ctr. II, LLC v. Quick
| Decision Date | 16 January 2014 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 4:09CV2132 HEA |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Missouri |
| Parties | SMALL HEARTS DAYCARE CENTER II, LLC and WALTER COLEMAN Plaintiffs, v. KATHY QUICK, Defendant. |
This matter is before the Court on Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment, [Doc. No. 147]. Plaintiffs oppose the Motion. For the reasons set forth below, the Motion is granted.
Plaintiff Walter Coleman is the owner and operator of Plaintiff Small Hearts Daycare Center II, LLC, a child care center located in St. Louis, Missouri. Child care facilities are regulated by the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services (DHSS) through its Section for Child Care Regulation (SCCR). Defendant Quick is the Administrator of SCCR. In August 2009, Defendant denied Plaintiffs' application to renew their child-care license. They also directedPlaintiffs to cease providing care to more than four unrelated children and informed third-party agencies that Small Hearts was unlicensed. Plaintiffs assert that they were entitled to administrative and judicial review of the agency's decision to deny renewal before Defendant took these actions. Plaintiffs claim their due process rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 were violated; and state a claim for tortious interference with a business expectancy.
On January 28, 2010, the Court entered a temporary restraining order that barred Defendant from claiming that Plaintiffs were operating without a license or On February 8, 2010, the parties agreed to the entry of consent preliminary injunction that allowed Plaintiffs to operate their facility pending administrative review. On June 6, 2010, Plaintiffs dismissed their claims for a permanent injunction because Plaintiffs voluntarily relinquished their license on November 5, 2010.
Rule 56(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure provides that summary judgment shall be entered if the moving party shows "that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law."
The standard for summary judgment is well settled. In determining whethersummary judgment should issue, the Court must view the facts and the inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co., Ltd. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587 (1986); Woods v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 409 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2005); Littrell v. City of Kansas City, Mo., 459 F.3d 918, 921 (8th Cir. 2006). The moving party has the burden to establish both the absence of a genuine issue of material fact and show that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247 (1986); Celotex Corp v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Enterprise Bank v. Magna Bank, 92 F.3d 743, 747 (8th Cir. 1996). Once the moving party has met this burden, the nonmoving party may not rest on the allegations in his pleadings but by affidavit or other evidence must adduce specific facts showing that a genuine issue of material fact exists. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e); Anderson 477 U.S. at 256, Littrell, 459 F.3d at 921.
The nonmoving party must articulate and substantiate specific facts showing a genuine dispute of material fact. "The party opposing summary judgment may not rest on the allegations in its pleadings; it must 'set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.'" United Life of Omaha Life Ins. Co. v. Honea, 458 F.3d 788, 791 (8th Cir. 2006) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); "Only disputes over facts that might affect the outcome of the suit under the governinglaw will properly preclude the entry of summary judgment." Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc. 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Hitt v. Harsco Corp., 356 F.3d 920, 923 (8th Cir. 2004). A disputed fact is genuine when "a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party" on a factual issue. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; Woods, 409 F.3d at 990. To survive a motion for summary judgment, the "nonmoving party must 'substantiate his allegations with sufficient probative evidence [that] would permit a finding in [his] favor based on more than mere speculation, conjecture, or fantasy.'" Wilson v. Int'l Bus. Machs. Corp., 62 F.3d 237, 241 (8th Cir. 1995)(quotation omitted);" Putnam v. Unity Health System, 348 F.3d 732, 733--34 (8th Cir. 2003). A plaintiff may not merely point to unsupported self-serving allegations, but must substantiate allegations with sufficient probative evidence that would permit a finding in the plaintiffs favor. Wilson 62 F.3d at 241 (8th Cir. 1995); Smith v. International Paper Co., 523 F.3d 845,848 (8th Cir. 2008). "The mere scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiffs position will be insufficient; there must be evidence on which the jury could reasonably find for the plaintiff." Anderson, 477 U.S. 242 at 252; Davidson & Assoc. v. Jung, 422 F.3d 630, 638 (8th Cir. 2005); Smith, 523 F.3d at 848.
On October 22, 2007, DHSS issued Small Hearts a license to operate a child day care facility that was, by the terms of the license, to expire on August 31, 2009.
On July 7, 2008, Small Hearts was cited for caring for fourteen (14) children over its licensed capacity.
On or about June 24, 2009, DHSS received multiple complaints regarding Small Hearts. On June 29, 2009, DHSS investigated the June 24, 2009, complaint allegations. On July 2, 6, 7 and 8, 2009, DHSS conducted further investigations into the June 24 complaint.
On July 16, 2009, DHSS notified Small Hearts that the June 24 complaint was substantiated.
On July 21, 2009, DHSS notified Small Hearts of an amended report substantiating the June 24, 2009, complaints specifically finding that Small Hearts submitted claims to the Department of Social Services, Child Care Subsidy program for a child who did not attend Small Hearts and for submitting false training certificates to DHSS.
On or about September 1, 2009, Small Hearts was issued a license thatexpired October 31, 2009.
On or about October 8, 2009, DHSS notified Small Hearts of its decision to deny its application to renew its child care license.
On November 1, 2009, DHSS issued Small Hearts a short term thirty day license for November 1, 2009 through November 30, 2009 to allow the facility time to wind down operations and/or to pursue applicable legal remedy.
On November 3, 2009, via letter, DHSS notified Small Hearts via letter to confirm the receipt from Small Hearts of a request for a hearing.
On November 3, 2009, via letter, DHSS notified Small Hearts that if it wished to continue providing child care after November 30, 2009, that it may seek an injunction in a circuit court of proper venue while the issue is litigated. Small Hearts failed to seek an injunction in state circuit court on or before November 30, 2009.
Small Hearts short-term thirty day license expired on November 30, 2009. Small Hearts had requested a hearing before the AHC. Instead of proceeding to a hearing before the Administrative Hearing Commission, Small Hearts and Walter Coleman and the Missouri Department of Health and Senior Services, Section for Child Care Regulation (DHSS) entered into a Settlement Agreement, styled Joint Motion for Consent Order, Joint Stipulation of Facts and Conclusions of Law, JointDisciplinary Order and Waiver of Hearing Before the Administrative Hearing Commission. "Small Hearts stipulates that the factual allegations contained in this Joint Stipulation are true and stipulates with the DHSS that Small Hearts' license for a day care center, no. 0001942536, is subject to disciplinary action by the DHSS in accordance with the relevant provision of Chapter 210, RSMo." In the Joint Stipulation, Small Hearts stipulated to the following:
To continue reading
Request your trial