Fellowship of Catholic University Students et al v. Sebelius et al

Filing 49

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT: IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that (1) The Defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment 19 is DENIED as moot. (2) Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment 12 is DENIED without prejudice. (3) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended Complaint, failing which the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute. by Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger on 9/30/14.(msksec, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO
Chief Judge Marcia S. Krieger
Civil Action No. 13-cv-03263-MSK-KMT
FELLOWSHIP OF CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY STUDENTS, a Colorado non-profit
corporation;
CURTIS A. MARTIN;
CRAIG MILLER;
BRENDA CANNELLA; and
CINDY O’BOYLE,
Plaintiffs,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Department of Health and
Human Services;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
THOMAS PEREZ, Secretary of the United States Department of Labor;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
JACOB J. LEW, Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
Defendants.

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION
TO DISMISS AND DIRECTING THE FILING OF AN AMENDED COMPLAINT
THIS MATTER comes before the Court on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary
Judgment (#12), the Defendants’ response (#18), the Plaintiffs’ Reply (#31). 1
The Plaintiffs are the Fellowship of Catholic University Students (“FOCUS”) and four
FOCUS employees. According to the Amended Complaint (#10), FOCUS is a non-profit
organization headquartered in Colorado. Its mission is to equip and enable qualified FOCUS-

1

Also before the Court is the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the Alternative, for Summary
Judgment (#19). However, the parties agree that consideration of the Motion to Dismiss is
premature.

trained missionaries to serve as the hands and feet of the Catholic Church and its auxiliaries by
meeting college students where they live. The Amended Complaint asserts that a relationship
with Jesus Christ and a commitment to the teachings of the Catholic Faith are central to
FOCUS’s mission. The Amended Complaint also asserts that the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 1029 (2010), forces the Plaintiffs
to violate their deeply held religious beliefs. Specifically, FOCUS complains that the ACA
requires it to provide, fund, facilitate, cause, or participate in health insurance which covers or
provides payments for artificial contraception, sterilization, and/or abortion-inducing drugs and
devices and related education and counseling. Despite the accommodation offered in 78 Fed.
Reg. 39,875-79, FOCUS complains that the ACA violates the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., and the First and Fifth Amendments of the U.S.
Constitution.
Consonant with the Tenth Circuit’s ruling in Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723
F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013), the Court granted (#39) the Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary
Injunction, and in expectation of the appeal of such matter to the United States Supreme Court,
deferred ruling on the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12).
The United States Supreme Court has now issued a decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby
Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014). It now appears that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#19) is
now moot.
Plaintiffs filed a supplemental brief in favor of the Motion for Summary Judgment (#44),
the Defendants also filed a supplemental brief (#46), and the Plaintiffs responded (#48). Both
Defendants’ supplemental brief and Plaintiffs’ response reflect a significant shift in the nature of

this controversy. Both now focus not on the ACA, but instead on the interim final rules
promulgated since Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014).
Neither the Amended Complaint nor the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment
contemplates these rules. In order to refocus the controversy to reflect the parties’ current
dispute, the Court finds that a new Amended Complaint (and if appropriate, dispositive motions)
must be filed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that
(1) The Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, for Summary Judgment
(#19) is DENIED as moot.
(2) Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#12) is DENIED without prejudice.
(3) Within 30 days of the date of this Order, Plaintiffs shall file a Second Amended
Complaint, failing which the case will be dismissed for failure to prosecute.
Dated this 30th day of September, 2014.
BY THE COURT:

Marcia S. Krieger
Chief United States District Judge