AWCC MEMORANDUM IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

ABORTION INDUSTRY IN MELBOURNE, FLORIDA
LAWSUITS
AWARE WOMAN V RANEY
DOCKET / CHRONOLOGICAL FILE
AWCC MEMORANDUM IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
NO. 99-05-CV-ORL-19

AWARE WOMAN CENTER, et al,
Plaintiffs,
-verus-
MEREDITH T RANEY, JR, et al.
Defendants.

AWCC MEMORANDUM IN COMPLIANCE WITH ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Plaintiffs AWCC respectfully submit this memorandum in compliance with the Order to Show Cause received by counsel June 28, 1999. Plaintiffs will show that good cause exists to defer a Case Management plan until (1) the AWCC motions for partial summary judgment and preliminary injunction have been decided, (2) the complaint has been amended to add as a new party plaintiff the physician at the facility who has been seriously harassed by the individual defendants, and (3) the separate declaratory coverage/defense action filed in Brevard County Circuit Court by Allstate Insurance Co has been determined.

STATUS OF CASE

1. This is a civil action for declaratory and injunctive relief, and for damages, based on a near-decade of harassment and stalking by individual defendants of the AWCC reproductive health care facility. The harassment was the subject of a substantial counterclaim in 97-1197-CV-19B, which was voluntarily dismissed in order to bring this more complete original action against all responsible defendants by all affected plaintiffs.

2. After this action was filed, plaintiffs moved for a preliminary injunction to stop the worst forms of harassment & stalking by individual defendants. Plaintiffs submitted a comprehensive memorandum of law numerous exhibits, and affidavits {Doc 6, filed 4/1/1999}. All defendants were served March 31, 1999, or thereabouts, with the complaint, motion, and memorandum in support of the injunction {Doc 6}. Some defendants have not yet received formal summonses, however, and have complained thereabout, but they have not been prejudiced in the least by that minimal omission and delay.

The further course of this action depends to a great degree upon the outcome of the pending motions which either side is likely to appeal, further postponing trial level proceedings. Post appeal Case Management will invariably be necessary.

3. The course of this action also depends to a great degree upon the liability as a matter of law of defendants CompuServe, Inc, and TML Services. AWCC makes substantial privacy claims against these defendants that need to be decided as a matter of summary judgment. One such claim invokes the federal Drivers' Privacy Protaetion Act, 18 USC §2721 (1994). The constitutionality of the public provisions of that Act is before the Supreme Court in Reno v Condon, U.S. No. 98.1464 (cert granted, to be argued in October, 1999).

4. Plaintiffs further need to add as an additional party-plaintiff the primary physician of AWCC. He too has been harassed not infrequently by Mr Raney, who even followed him to Ohio to stalk his former residence. Mr Raney also prepared a dossier sheet on this doctor, and caused it to be published widely for no legitimate reason but to target the doctor.

This additional party needs to be added and the complaint amended prior to any Case Management Conference. Thirty days would be sufficient time for the addition.

The addition of party situation here is similar to that in Lucero v Trosch, 121 F3d 591 (11th Cir 1997). The Eleventh Circuit there added a new party and affirmed an injunction against harassment although on state law nuisance grounds. Lucero is appropriate authority for the addition in this similar case, even on appeal. These plaintiffs have been more prompt.

5. A further factor of crucial importance in this case is insurance coverage and defense of Meredith Raney and other similarly situated defendants. The Allstate companies, including a Florida corporation (i.e., no diversity), informed the undersigned counsel this Friday July 2, 1999, that they had commenced a declaratory coverage action in Brevard County Circuit Court to determine whether Mr Raney is covered for his acts and omissions enumerated in this lawsuit. Other individual defendants may raise similar coverage questions under the umbrella of Allstate and several other companies.

The individual coverage questions for defense and damages should be determined before this case goes too far. That will take some time, as will the argument and decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in Condon v Reno, supra.

Plaintiffs have prosecuted this case thoroughly in the requests for injunctive and partial summary judgment. The Case Management Conference has not been held because not all defendants have been served with summonses, although all certainly have the complaint, motions, memoranda, affidavits, and exhibits and have in no way remotely suffered any prejudice.

Plaintiffs respectfully ask the Court to allow until Autiust 9, 1999, for the filing of a first amended complaint adding a necessary new party plaintiff.

Plaintiffs further ask the Court to rule upon the motions for partial summary judgment and preliminary injunction and to allow 45 days from that ruling for a Case Management Conference. In that conference the parties can endeavor to schedule around the possible consequences of the Supreme Court ruling expected in Reno v Condon, supra, as well as the new declaratory coverage suit brought in Brevard County by the Allstate companies.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court should discharge the Order to Show Cause.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED:

Roy Lucas <signed>
Trial Counsel
c/o PO Box 1433
Melbourne, FL 32902-1433
TEL: 1-407-725-2413
FAX: 1-407-725-3847

Scott R Rost
228 Park Ave North
Winter Park, FL, 32789
TEL: 1-407-539-1140
FAX: 1-407-539-1126

Susan A England
2805 Lakevlew Drive
Fern Park, F1 32730
TEL: 1-407-339-4º00
FAX: 1-407-331-3006

ATTORNEYS FOR AWCC et al PLAINTIFFS.

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE: The foregoing AWCC Memorandum has been served by the undersigned RL by First Class mail, postage prepaid, sent this Monday the 5th day of July, 1999, to the following:

Charles P. Scheeler, Esq
Piper & Marbury
38 So Charles St
Baltimore, MD 21201-3018
TEL: 1-410-539-2530
FAX: 1-410-539-0489
[for CompuServe, Inc]

John P. Marino, Esq
LeBoeuf, Lamb, Green & Mcrae
50 N Laura St, Ste 2800
Jacksonville, FL 32202
TEL: 1-904-354-8000
FAX: 1-904-353-1673
[for TML Services, Inc]

Brian Fahling, Esq
PO Drawer 2440
American Family Association
100 Parkgate, Suite 29
Tupelo, MS 38803
[for Mark Hall, Christine Jagos, Cecelia Stanback, Pat Pinkston, and Nancy Lally, defendants]

Frederick Nelson, Esq
PO Box 547503
Orlando, FL 32854-7503
TEL: 407-786-7007

FAX: 407-786-2705
[for Meredith Raney, Wm & Allen LeStourgeon, John (Jay) Rogers, Anne Blackburn, Luther Laite, III, Pat McEwen, Dolly Edwards, Richard Dean, Cheryl Palmer, Allen & Norma Munroe, defendants]

By: Roy Lucas