UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA E.M., : : Plaintiff, : Civil Action No.: 19-657 (RC) : v. : Re Document No.: 5 : SHADY GROVE REPRODUCTIVE : SCIENCE CENTER P.C., : : Defendant. : MEMORANDUM OPINION DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION I. INTRODUCTION For years, Plaintiff E.M. used the services of Shady Grove Fertility (“SGF”) in an effort to conceive a biological child. But in early 2019, as E.M. was preparing to use six eggs that SGF had frozen for her years earlier, SGF dismissed her as a patient—a decision that E.M. alleges was made in retaliation after she accused SGF of discriminating against her on the basis of marital status, in violation of the D.C. Human Rights Act (“DCHRA”), D.C. Code § 2-1402.31. Since the dismissal, SGF has maintained that it would pay to transfer E.M.’s frozen eggs to another medical provider in the area, where E.M. could resume her fertility treatments. E.M. does not want her eggs moved, though, and she thinks that treatment at SGF gives her the best chance of successfully becoming pregnant and carrying to term. She therefore brought this lawsuit, seeking not only money damages but a permanent injunction preventing SGF from dismissing her from its practice and discontinuing her treatment. 1 1 The named Defendant is Shady Grove Reproductive Science Center P.C., a Maryland professional corporation that is registered as a foreign corporation with the Corporations Presently before the Court is E.M.’s motion for a preliminary injunction, which would require SGF to reinstate her and resume treatment while her lawsuit is pending. According to E.M., such relief is necessary because her biological clock does not permit her to delay treatment, moving her eggs to another practice would make them less viable, and any other clinic would provide inferior care. As explained below, however, the Court finds E.M.’s contentions about the risks of transferring her eggs and using another practice to be too speculative to warrant the issuance of a preliminary injunction. And the current hostility between the parties makes reinstatement infeasible while they pursue discovery and prepare for trial. The Court thus concludes that this case is ill-suited for preliminary relief, and it denies E.M.’s motion while reserving judgment as to whether she is likely to ultimately succeed on the merits of her claims. II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND E.M. first started going to SGF in 2012. Compl. ¶ 6, ECF No. 2. At the time thirty-nine years old, she decided to enroll in SGF’s egg freezing program, under which multiple eggs are surgically removed and cryopreserved for future fertility use. Id. ¶¶ 6, 9. E.M. underwent one egg freezing cycle that ultimately produced six cryopreserved eggs—five mature and one immature, meaning of questionable viability. Id. ¶ 24. With those age thirty-nine eggs saved for years down the road, E.M. then spent the next few years trying to become pregnant through other means. See id. ¶¶ 34–45. Her partner for these endeavors was J.S., with whom she has “been in ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals