# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 6- 35 39

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Pl an ne d P aren th oo d Gre at Pla in s

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e

v.

Ran da ll W il li am s, Di rect or of t he Mi ss ou ri De pa rtment o f Heal th an d S en io r

Serv ic es , in hi s o ffi ci al cap aci ty

ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe ll an t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i - J effe rs on Cit y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Su bm it te d: Apri l 6 , 20 17 Fil ed : J ul y

20 , 20 17

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re GRUENDER, MURPHY, an d KELLY, Circ ui t J ud ge s.

__ __ __ __ __ __ KELLY, Cir cu it Ju dg e.

-1

-Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od of Kan sa s a n d Mi d- Mi ss ou ri (PPKM ) so ug ht an d 1 ob ta in ed a pe rm an en t in

jun ct io n ag ai ns t th e Mi ss ou ri Dep art m en t of Heal th an d Sen io r Serv ic es (DHSS) aft er DHSS at te m pt ed to rev ok e PPKM’s li cen se to pr ov id e ab or ti on se rv ic es

. DHSS ap pe al s th e di st ric t co ur t’s su bs eq ue nt award of at to rn ey ’s 2 fees to PPKM. Hav in g ju ris di ct io n p ur su an t t o 2 8 U.S.C. § 12 91 , we affi rm

.

I. Ba ck gr ou nd

PPKM op erat es a h e al th care faci li ty in Co lu m bi a, Mi ss ou ri, th at pr ev io us ly
pr ov id ed wom en wit h ab or ti on se rv ic es

. In Mi ss ou ri, faci li ti es th at pr ov id e ab or ti on

se rv ic es are a su bs et of a mbu la to ry su rg ic al cen te rs (ASCs ), an d are reg ul at ed by DHSS. See Mo. Cod e Reg s. Ann. tit

. 19 , §§ 30 -3 0.0 50 to 30 -3 0.0 70

. Fo r a faci li ty to rece iv e an ASC li cen se to pr ov id e ab or t i on se rv ic es , a ph y si ci an pr ov id in g th e

se rv ic es a t th e faci li ty m us t “ ha ve st aff pr iv il eg es at a ho sp it al wit hi n fif te en (1 5)

m in ut es ’ tra ve l t im e fro m th e fac il it y .” Id . § 3 0- 30 .06 0( 1) (C)( 4)

.

DHSS is su ed PPKM an ASC li cen se on Ju ly 15 , 20 15 , whi le PPKM em pl oyed

a ph y s i c i a n w it h ho sp it al pr iv il eg es at th e Uni ve rs it y of Mi ss ou ri ho sp it al

. The li cen se was va li d th ro ug h Ju ne 30 , 20 16

. Howev er, PPKM’s ph y si ci an lo st he r ho sp it al pr iv il eg es in Sep te m be r 20 1 5 w h e n t he Uni ve rs it y of Mi ss ou ri ho sp it al

ceas ed is su in g an d ho no rin g th e type of pr iv il eg es sh e he ld

. As a res u l t , P P KM la ck ed on e of th e ASC li cen se req ui rem en ts at it s Co lu m bi a faci li ty, an d in fo rm ed DHSS th at it ha d s to pp ed pro vi di ng ab or ti on ser vi ces at t ha t fa ci li ty.

PPKM ha s un de rg on e a na m e ch an ge du e to a co r p o r a t e mer ge r, an d no w 1 op erat es un de r th e n am e Pl an ne d P aren th oo d Gre at Pla in s.
The Ho n or ab le Nan et te K. Lau gh rey, Uni te d St at es Dis tri ct Ju dg e fo r th e 2 W es te rn Dis tri ct of M is so ur i.

-2

-DHSS no ti fie d PPKM by le tt er on Sep te m be r 25 , 20 15 , th at it s ASC li cen se fo r th e Co lu m

bi a fac il it y

wou ld be rev ok ed effe ct iv e Decem be r 1, 20 15 , un le ss PPKM

sa ti sf ie d th e h o s p i t a l pr iv il eg es req ui rem en t. PPKM in fo rm ed DHSS th at it was

wor ki ng to re-e st ab li sh ho sp i t a l p r i vi le ge s. On Nov em be r 25 , 20 15 , DHSS ag ai n

no ti fie d PPKM of i t s i n te nt to rev ok e th e Co lu m bi a faci li ty’ s ASC li cen se on Decem be r 1, 2 01 5.

On Nov em

be r 30 , 20 15 , PPK M f

i l e d a co m

pl ai nt in fed eral di st ric t co ur t in Mi ss ou ri pu rs u a nt to 28 U.S.C. § 19 83 ag ai ns t DHSS’ act in g di rect or , Pet er Ly sk ows ki , in hi s of

fic ia l cap aci ty, al le gi ng th at DHSS’ im m in en t rev oc at io n of th e 3 Co lu m bi a faci li ty’ s ASC li cen se vi ol at ed PPKM’s Fo ur te en th Am en dm en t rig ht s to pr oc ed ur al du e pr oc es s an d eq ua l pr ot ect io n, an d se ek in g de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f. PPKM si m

ul ta ne ou sl y fil ed a m ot io n fo r a te m po rary res tra in in g or de r (TRO),

as ki ng th e co ur t fo r th e op po rtu ni ty to pr es en t ex pe di te d br ie fin g on it s req ue st fo r a pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n. The di st ric t co ur t gr an te d PPKM ’s mo t i on fo r a TRO, effe ct iv e th ro ug h Dec em

be r 2, 2 01 5.

On Decem

be r 2, 20 15 , aft er ad di ti on al br ie fin g an d a te le ph on e co nf eren ce, th e di st ric t co ur t fo un d th at PPKM’s eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m ha d a su bs ta nt ia l li ke li ho od of su cces s, an d en te red a se co nd TRO, effe ct iv e th ro ug h Decem be r 30 , 20 15

. The n, 4

o n D ecember 28 , 20 15 , aft er li m it ed di sc ov ery, fu rth er br ie fin g, an d a he ari ng , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d PPKM’s req ue st fo r a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n. DHSS ap pe al ed th e pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n or de r, bu t on May 11 , 20 16 , whi le th at ap pe al was pe nd in g, th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d PP K M ’s m ot io n fo r a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n, an d DHSS’

5

On Mar ch 23 , 20 17 , th e co ur t gr an te d th e ap pe ll an t’s m ot io n to su bs ti tu te Dr. 3 Ran da ll W il li am s fo r Pet er Ly sk ows ki as t he di rect or of DHSS

. The co ur t m ad e n o fi nd in gs reg ard in g P PKM’s d ue pro ces s cl ai m

. 4

The co ur t ag ai n de ci d ed th e cas e on PPKM’s eq ua l pr ot ect io n cl ai m , an d 5 de cl in ed to ad dr es s PP KM’s du e p ro ces s cl ai m

. -3

-ap pe al of th e pr el im in ary in jun ct io n was di sm is se d as m oo t. See Pl an ne d Pare nt ho od of Kan

. & Mi d- Mo

. v. Ly sk ows ki , No. 16 -1 30 2 (8 th Ci r. May 12 , 20 16 ) (d is m is si ng ap pe al of p rel im in ary in

jun ct io n o rd er p ur su an t t o F ed . R. App . P. 42 (b )).

PPKM’s ASC li cen se ex p i r e d on Ju ne 30 , 20 16

. On Aug us t 1, 20 16 , th e di st ric t co ur t gr an te d PPKM’s m ot io n fo r at to rn ey ’s fees pu r su an t to 42 U.S.C. § 19 88

. DHSS th en ap pe al ed th e pe rm an en t in ju n ct io n an d at to rn ey ’s fees award

. PPKM m ov ed to di sm is s DHSS’ ap pe al of th e di st ric t co ur t’s m eri ts de ci si on as m oo t in li gh t of th e fact th at PPKM’s li cen se ha d ex pi red

. DHSS di d no t res is t th e m ot io n,

an d we l im it ed DHSS’ app eal to it s ch al le ng e to th e at to rn ey ’s fees award

.

DHSS arg ue s th at th e di st ric t cou rt erred in award in g att or ne y ’s fees be cau se PPKM was no t en ti t le d to a TRO or a pr el im in ary in jun ct io n, an d be cau se PPKM ach ie ve d o nl y

a te ch ni cal vi ct or y

th at res ul te d i n n o re al be ne fit to PPKM.

II . Disc us si on

“ W e rev ie w de no vo t h e l eg al is su es rel at ed to an award of at to rn ey s’ fees , whi le th e act ua l award is rev ie wed fo r an ab us e of di sc ret io n.” Sn id er v. Ci ty of Cap e Gira rd eau , 75 2 F.3 d 11 49 , 11 59 (8 th Ci r. 20 14 ). DHSS fir st arg ue s th at th e at to rn ey ’s fees award is “ erro ne ou s be cau se PPKM was no t en ti tl ed to a te m po rary res tra in in g

or de r or a p r e l i mi n a ry in jun ct io n.” DHSS cl ai m s th at PPKM’s award sh ou ld th eref or e b e red uc ed by th e am ou nt PPKM clai m ed fo r th e ho ur s att rib ut ed to wor k

on th e TRO an d p rel im in ary in jun ct io n.

DHSS’ co nt e n t i o n a m ou nt s to a rep ack ag ed arg um en t on th e m eri ts

. W e pr ev io us ly gr an te d PPKM’s m ot io n to di sm is s DHSS’ m eri ts a r g u ment s as m oo t; DHSS di d no t th en an d do es no t no w di sp ut e th at it s m eri ts arg um en ts are m oo t du e to th e ex pi rat io n of th e PPKM’s ASC li cen se on Ju ne 30 , 20 16

. W he n an ap pe al fro m th e m eri ts is m oo t, th e co ur t can no t ex am in e th e di st ric t co ur t’s un de rlyin g de ci si on

-4

-on th e m eri ts to de te rm in e th e ap pr op ria te ne ss of an att or ne y ’s f

ees award

. Bi sh op

v. Co m m

. on Pro f’l Eth ic s & Co nd uc t of Io wa St at e Bar Ass ’n, 68 6 F.2 d 12 78 , 12 90 (8 th Ci r. 19 82 ); se e al so Ct r. fo r Bi ol og ic al Div ers it y v. Mar in a Po in t Dev

. Co ., 56 6 F.3 d 79 4, 80 5– 06 (9 th Ci r. 20 08 ) (co ll ect in g cas es ). W e th eref or e de cl in e to rev ie w th e m eri ts of th e di st ric t c ou rt’s de ci si on s to gr an t PPKM’s m ot io ns fo r a TRO an d
pr el im in ary in

jun ct io n in de te rm in in g whe th er it s at to rn ey ’s fees award was pr op er.

In st ead , “ [i]n a cas e whe re t he un de rlyin g a ct io n h as be en di sm is se d as m oo t

on ap pe al , th e pr op rie ty of an award of at to rn ey ’s fees un de r 42 U.S.C. § 19 88 tu rn s

on a de te rm in at io n of whe th er th e pl a i n t iff can be co ns id ered to ha ve be en a ‘prev ai li ng pa rty’ in th e un de rlyin g act io n.” Bi sh op , 68 6 F.2 d at 12 90

. DHSS arg ue s th at whi le PPKM “ fo rm al ly pr ev ai le d,” “ PPKM’s te ch ni cal su cces s in ob ta i n i ng a pe rm an en t in

jun ct io n th at pr ev en te d DHSS fro m rev ok in g an un us ab le li cen se th at

wou ld so on ex pi re d oe s n ot jus ti fy a fu ll fee awa rd .”

A pa rty pr ev ai ls “ whe n a c t ua l rel ie f on th e m eri ts of [it s] cl ai m m at eri al ly al te rs th e le ga l rel at io ns hi p be twee n th e pa rti es by m od ifyin g th e d efen da nt ’s be ha vi or in a way th at di rect ly be ne fit s th e pl ai nt iff .” Farr ar v. Hob by, 50 6 U.S. 10 3, 11 1– 12 (1 99 2) ; se e al so Ro ge rs Grp ., In c. v. Ci ty of Fayette vi ll e, 68 3 F.3 d 90 3, 90 9 (8 th Ci r. 20 12 ) (“ [T]o be a pr ev ai li ng pa rty en ti tl ed to a st at ut or y at to rn ey s’ fee

a w a r d , a pa rty m

us t ob ta in a ju di ci al ly sa nc ti on ed m at eri al al te rat io n of th e le ga l rel at io ns hi p of th e pa rti es to th e la wsu it .” (q uo ti ng N. Ch ey en ne Trib e v. Ja ck so n, 43 3 F.3 d 10 83 , 1 08 5 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ))). W hi le or de rs “ th at m erel y m ai nt ai n[ ] th e st at us qu o” are in su ffi ci en t to co nf er pr ev ai li ng st at us on a li ti ga nt , N. Ch ey en ne Trib e, 43 3 F.3 d at 10 86 , “ en fo rcea bl e jud gm en ts on th e m eri ts an d co ns en t de cre e s c r e a te th e req ui si te m at eri al al te rat io n in th e pa rti es ’ le ga l rel at io ns hi p to ach ie ve pr ev a i l in g pa rty st at us ,” Adv an ta ge Med ia , LLC v. Ci ty of Hop ki ns , 51 1 F.3 d 83 3, 83 7 (8 th Ci r. 20 08 ) ( c i t i ng Bu ck ha nn on Bd

. & Care Hom e, In c. v. W

. Va. Dep ’t of Heal th & Hum an Res ., 5 32 U

. S

. 5 9 8 , 6 03 –0 4 (2 00 1) ). See Lefem in e v. W id em an , 1 33 S. Ct

. 9, 11 (2 01 2) (p art y rece iv in g pe rm an en t in jun ct io n is pr ev ai li ng pa rty); Bi sh op , 68 6

-5

-F.2 d at 12 90 (“ Eve n pr el im in ary or te m po rary rel ie f gr an te d by th e di st ric t co ur t m ay be su ffi ci en t t o m ak e a p la in ti ff a ‘pre va il in g p art y ’ un de r se ct io n 1 98 8.” ).

The ou tc om e in th is cas e es ta bl is he d PPKM as th e p r e v a i l i ng pa rty. See Bi sh op , 68 6 F.2 d at 12 90 ( a w a r d of de cl arat or y an d in jun ct iv e rel ie f su ffi ci en t to

es ta bl is h p rev ai li ng pa rty). PPKM su cces sf ul ly pr ev en te d DHSS fro m pre m at ur el y

rev ok in g it s ASC li cen se in vi ol at io n of PPKM’s eq ua l pr ot ect io n rig ht s by ob ta in in g bo th a pr el im in ary an d a pe rm an en t in jun ct io n. See Lefem in e, 13 3 S. Ct

. at 11 (“ And we ha ve rep eat ed ly h el d th at an in jun ct io n o r de cl arat or y

jud gm en t, l ik e a d am ag es award , wil l us ua ll y sa ti sf

y th at [p rev ai li ng pa rty] te st .” (ci ti ng Rh od es v. St ewart , 48 8 U.S. 1, 4 (1 98 8) (p er cu ria m ))). Tho ug h PPKM was un ab le to se cu re a ph y si ci an wit h ho sp it al pr iv il eg es be fo re th e e x p i r a t i o n of th e ASC li cen se , it s su cces s in th is li ti ga ti on affo rd ed it an ad di ti on al si x m on th s to at te m pt to do so

. Afte r rev ie win g th e is su e de no vo , se e Je nk in s by Je nk in s v. Mi ss ou ri, 12 7 F.3 d 70 9, 71 3 (8 th Ci r. 19 97 ),

we co nc lu de th at PPKM was th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty in th is cas e. DHSS of fers no ad di ti on al reas on to co nc lu de th at PPKM, as th e pr ev ai li ng pa rty, is no t en ti tl ed to th e at to rn ey ’s fees award ed by the di st ric t co ur t.

II I. Co ncl us io n

The di st rict co ur

t di d no t ab us e it s di sc ret io n in award in g PPKM at to rn ey ’s fees fo r it s wor k at al l st ag es of th is li ti ga ti on , Lefem in e, 1 3 3 S

. Ct

. at 10 , an d PPKM’s

reco ve ry in th is cas e was no t so te ch ni cal as to ren de r th e award an ab us e of di sc ret io n, cf

. Farra r, 50 6 S . Ct. at 11 4. Th eref or e, we affi rm

.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-6

-