Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 6 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA CENTRAL DIVISION MELINDA FISHER; SHANNON G.; BRANDON R.; MARTY M.; MISTY M.; and NEAL SIEGEL, v. Plaintiffs, JERRY FOXHOVEN, Defendant. No. 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB ORDER RE: DEFENDANT S MOTION TO DISMISS Now before the Court is Defendant Jerry Foxhoven s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26. For the reasons outlined below, the Court grants Foxhoven s Motion to Dismiss. I. BACKGROUND The Court addressed in detail the background relevant to this case in its order denying Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 57; see also Order Den. Pls. Mot. Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 58. The Court reiterates the following background. On October 19, 2017, the Court held a hearing on the three motions then before the Court: Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification, ECF No. 2, Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 15, and Foxhoven s Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim, ECF No. 26. See Hr g Mins., ECF No. 50. On November 21, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Class Certification. ECF No. 57. On November 28, the Court denied Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction. ECF No. 58. At the time Plaintiffs filed their amended complaint, Iowa s Medicaid waivers were administered by three Managed Care Organizations (MCOs). See Pls. Am. Compl. 85, ECF No. 8. Plaintiffs were all enrolled with only one MCO: AmeriHealth Caritas. Id. 7 12. The parties agree on or about November 30, 2017, AmeriHealth Caritas stopped administering Iowa s Medicaid waivers. See Def. s Br. Supp. Def. s Mot. Leave File Suppl. Resist., ECF No. 54-1;
Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 6 Def. s Mot. Leave File Suppl. Resist., ECF No. 54-3; Pls. Reply Def. s Suppl. Resist., ECF No. 56. 1 After AmeriHealth Caritas withdrawal from administering Iowa s Medicaid waivers on November 30, 2017, Iowa DHS randomly distributed [AmeriHealth Caritas enrollees] to the two current MCOs, Amerigroup [Iowa, Inc.] and UnitedHealthcare [Plan of the River Valley, Inc.]. ECF No. 54-3. Plaintiffs have not amended their complaint after these changes. The Court now addresses Foxhoven s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26. In his motion, Foxhoven requests the Court dismiss the Amended Complaint because no relief can be granted. Id. at 2. II. LEGAL STANDARD To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)); accord Braden v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 588 F.3d 585, 594 (8th Cir. 2009). At the motion to dismiss stage, the Court accept[s] as true the material allegations in the complaint and present[s] the facts in the light most favorable to [the Plaintiffs]. Kulkay v. Roy, 847 F.3d 637, 640 (8th Cir. 2017); see also Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 79 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 56). A plausible claim for relief allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Plaintiffs must nudge[ ] their claims across the line from conceivable to plausible, [else] their complaint must be dismissed. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. Where a complaint pleads facts that are merely consistent 1 In large part, Plaintiffs reply appears to assert new bases for their claims. See ECF No. 56 6 12. Because parties can only raise new claims by amending their pleadings under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15, the Court does not consider any allegations outside Plaintiffs amended complaint. See also LR 15. Though Plaintiffs argue they continue to suffer injuries under privatized administration of Iowa s Medicaid waivers, ECF No. 56 1 5, the Plaintiffs do not dispute AmeriHealth Caritas ceased administering Iowa Medicaid waiver services. 2
Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 6 with a defendant s liability, it stops short of the line between possibility and plausibility of entitlement to relief. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 557). Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice. Id. III. DISCUSSION The parties present a variety of arguments as to Foxhoven s Motion to Dismiss. See Def. s Br. Supp. Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 26-1; Pls. Br. Resist Def. s Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 28; Def. s Br. Reply Mot. Dismiss, ECF No. 29. Because the Court determines recent factual developments underlying Plaintiffs claims have rendered Plaintiffs claims moot for the reasons discussed below, the Court does not address any other arguments raised. The Eighth Circuit has determined where monetary damages are not sought nor any other relief which would be operative against[ ] defendants who no longer possess any official power, the action against them is, of course, moot. Tara Enters., Inc. v. Humble, 622 F.2d 400, 401 (8th Cir. 1980); see generally 13C Charles Alan Wright et al., Federal Practice and Procedure 3533.3.1, 3533.7, 3533.8 (3d ed. 2008 & Supp. 2017) (discussing mootness for injunctions and declaratory relief, discontinued official acts, and claims capable of evading review). It is well established that there must be some indication that [the defendants] intend to continue the unconstitutional practices alleged in the complaint. Tara Enters., 622 F.3d at 401 02; see also Dayringer v. Webster, 547 F. App x 799, 800 (8th Cir. 2013) (unpublished) (per curiam) ( [Plaintiffs] must establish that defendants successors continue[d] the unconstitutional practices alleged in the complaint in order to defeat mootness. (second alteration in original) (citing Tara Enters., 622 F.2d at 401 02)). Here, Plaintiffs seek only injunctive and declaratory relief. See ECF No. 8 at 54 55. 3
Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 6 Plaintiffs style their complaint as concerning the actions of the Defendants and their agents. ECF No. 8 101. Though Plaintiffs seek to enjoin only Foxhoven not any MCO their complaint relies almost exclusively on AmeriHealth Caritas actions. See id. 101 08, 204 208; see also id. 7 12, 112, 132, 141, 157, 175, 177, 180. The Court determines the only agent relevant to the Plaintiffs claims specifically named in the complaint is AmeriHealth Caritas. The other MCOs Amerigroup and UnitedHealthcare are mentioned by name only once in Plaintiffs complaint. Id. 85. Though Plaintiffs contend Amerigroup and UnitedHealthcare have similar obligations under their contracts with Iowa DHS, see id. 85 96, Plaintiffs do not allege Amerigroup or UnitedHealthcare failed to satisfy those obligations. Thus, Foxhoven s supervision of AmeriHealth Caritas is the only relationship implicated in Plaintiffs complaint. 2 The departure of AmeriHealth Caritas fundamentally alters the character of the Foxhoven AmeriHealth Caritas Medicaid waiver relationship by eliminating it. AmeriHealth Caritas is therefore a central actor in many ways, the central actor in each of Plaintiffs claims. See ECF No. 8 209 28. Accordingly, the Court determines application of Tara Enterprises successor mootness analysis is appropriate. 622 F.2d at 401 02. In their reply to Foxhoven s supplemental briefing, Plaintiffs assert [t]here is no evidence that the Defendant or any of the remaining managed care companies intends to come into compliance with constitutional or statutory due process or to restore their services or budgets based on Plaintiffs individualized assessments and service plans. ECF No. 56 4. However, Plaintiffs complaint does not allege any of the remaining managed care companies are not or were not in compliance with constitutional or statutory due process, or had their services or budgets based on improper considerations. Contra ECF No. 56 4. By the same token, nothing in Plaintiffs 2 Even so, Foxhoven s role is confined to his alleged failure to supervise AmeriHealth Caritas. ECF No. 8 2. 4
Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 6 complaint plausibly alleges Foxhoven fail[ed] to supervise any other MCO. Cf. ECF No. 8 2. Accordingly, the Court finds no grounds in the record to conclude Plaintiffs allegations with respect to Foxhoven s supervision of AmeriHealth Caritas apply to Foxhoven s supervision of any other MCO. To the extent Plaintiffs claims retain vitality as to Foxhoven s supervision of the other MCOs or his administration of Iowa s Medicaid waivers more generally, they do so either with mere conclusory statements, Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, or by seeking injunctions to obey the law. Jake s, Ltd. v. City of Coates, 356 F.3d 896, 904 (8th Cir. 2004); see also Galloway v. Kansas City Landsmen, LLC, 833 F.3d 969, 974 n.3 (8th Cir. 2016) ( Blanket injunctions against general violation of a statute are repugnant to American spirit and should not lightly be either administratively sought or judicially granted. (quoting Beatty v. United States, 191 F.2d 317, 321 (8th Cir. 1951))). AmeriHealth Caritas no longer administers Iowa s Medicaid waivers. In their pleadings, briefs, and motions, Plaintiffs have neither alleged nor establish[ed] that [AmeriHealth Caritas ] successors continue[d] the unconstitutional practices alleged in the complaint. Dayringer, 547 F. App x at 800 (quoting Tara Enters., 622 F.2d at 401 02). AmeriHealth Caritas discontinuing its administration of Medicaid has completely and irrevocably eradicated the effects of the alleged violation[s] in Plaintiffs complaint. Los Angeles Cty. v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979). Because AmeriHealth Caritas no longer administers Iowa s Medicaid waivers, Plaintiffs cannot seek to enjoin Foxhoven s alleged failure to supervise AmeriHealth Caritas. Plaintiffs cannot plausibly allege ongoing violations of federal law where their allegations relate to an entity no longer in a position to violate federal law. Therefore, Plaintiffs claims ha[ve] lost [their] character as a present, live controversy. Keevan v. Smith, 100 F.3d 644, 647 (8th Cir. 1996) (quoting Princeton Univ. v. Schmid, 455 U.S. 100, 103 (1982) (per curiam)). Consequently, the Court dismisses as moot all claims in Plaintiffs complaint. 5
Case 4:17-cv-00208-RGE-CFB Document 65 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 6 IV. CONCLUSION Because Plaintiffs seek only prospective relief, the actor underlying Plaintiffs allegations has ceased administration of Iowa s Medicaid waivers, and Plaintiffs have not plausibly alleged Foxhoven fails to supervise any other MCO, Plaintiffs complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. IT IS SO ORDERED that Defendant s Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 26, is GRANTED. The Clerk of Court is instructed to dismiss all claims without prejudice. Dated this 2nd day of February, 2018. 6