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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?