DISTRICT HOSPITAL PARTNERS, L.P. et al v. BURWELL

Filing 19

ORDER denying 16 Motion to Stay. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Ellen S. Huvelle on July 8, 2016. (lcesh1)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
)
DISTRICT HOSPITAL PARTNERS, L.P.,
)
d/b/a The George Washington University )
Hospital, et al.,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
SYLVIA M. BURWELL,
)
Secretary, Department of Health and
)
Human Services,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

Civil Action No. 16-528 (ESH)

ORDER
Plaintiffs have moved to stay all proceedings in this action pending the D.C. Circuit’s
decision in a recently docketed appeal, Banner Health v. Burwell, No. 16-5129 (D.C. Cir. May
23, 2016). (See Pls.’ Mot. to Stay [ECF No. 16].) They assert that the Banner Health appeal
“will likely have a substantial impact on this case,” potentially narrowing the issues to be
litigated and avoiding the unnecessary expenditure of resources by both the Court and the
parties. (See id. ¶ 4.) Secretary Burwell opposes a stay at this time, for two reasons: first, the
parties have already finished briefing defendant’s partial motion to dismiss on res judicata
grounds, the resolution of which will not be affected by the Banner Health decision; and second,
it is entirely speculative at this point whether the Court of Appeals will decide the primary issue
raised here. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. [ECF No. 17] at 2-3.)
The Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to control
its own docket.” Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997); Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S.
248, 254 (1936) (discussing courts’ power to “control the disposition of the causes on its docket

with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants”). As the moving party,
plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing the stay’s necessity, see Clinton, 520 U.S. at 708, and
this they have failed to do. They assert nothing more than a possibility that the Court of Appeals
could narrow the issues here and thus conserve judicial resources. (See Pls.’s Mot. ¶ 4.) As the
Secretary points out, the appellants in Banner Health have only presented a “preliminary, nonbinding statement of the issues to be raised,” which includes the sufficiency of the 2016 Notice
challenged here. See Appellants’ Statement of the Issues to Be Raised on Appeal, Banner Heath
v. Burwell, Case No. 16-5129 (D.C. Cir. June 22, 2016) (emphasis added). Moreover, even
assuming the Circuit reaches that issue, “[i]t takes time to decide a case on appeal. Sometimes a
little; sometimes a lot.” See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 421 (2009). No briefing schedule has
been established in Banner Health, let alone an oral argument—by even a conservative estimate,
the stay would be likely to last a year or more as the Court of Appeals reaches its decision. Such
a lengthy stay is simply unwarranted in light of the mere possibility that judicial resources might
be conserved.
The Secretary has expressed her willingness to reconsider a stay once (1) the Court has
ruled on her partial motion to dismiss, and (2) the issues ultimately briefed in Banner Health do
show significant overlap with those remaining here. (See Def.’s Opp’n Br. at 4.) The Court
agrees that this is a prudent resolution. Therefore, it is hereby
ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion to stay is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

/s/ Ellen Segal Huvelle
ELLEN SEGAL HUVELLE
United States District Judge
Date: July 8, 2016