JOHNSON WELDED PRODUCTS, INC et al v. SEBELIUS et al

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on October 24, 2014. (lcesh2)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

)
JOHNSON WELDED PRODUCTS, INC., et al. )
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al.
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

Civil Action No. 13-00609 (ESH)

MEMORANDUM OPINION
The Court has carefully considered Defendants’ Objections to the Court’s Proposed
Order [ECF No. 8] and Plaintiffs’ Response [ECF No. 9]. Defendants request, and plaintiffs
object to, the inclusion in the injunction of the following paragraph:
ORDERED that this injunction and judgment does not apply with respect to any
changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date,
and nothing herein prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge
any such future changes.
In similar cases brought by for-profit corporations challenging the contraceptive
coverage requirement, several courts have entered orders containing the above-quoted language,
with both parties’ consent. E.g., Midwest Fastener Corp. v. Burwell, No. 1:13-cv-1337 (D.D.C.
Oct. 24, 2014); Gilardi v. HHS, No. 1:13-cv-104 (D.D.C. Oct. 20, 2014); see also Joint Mot. for
Entry of Inj. & J., Lindsay v. Burwell, No. 1:13-cv-1210 (N.D. Ill. Oct. 15, 2014); Joint Mot. for
Entry of Inj. & J., Am. Pulverizer Co. v. HHS, No. 6:12-cv-3459 (W.D. Mo. Oct. 15, 2014). The
Court does not believe that this language “adds ambiguity and confusion” to the injunction,
which, with the parties’ consent, already is limited to “the statute and regulations in effect on

June 30, 2014.” (Pls.’ Resp. to Defs.’ Objection to the Court’s Proposed Order [ECF No. 9].)
The Court, therefore, will include defendants’ proposed paragraph in its order.
/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge

Date: October 24, 2014