Affiliates, Inc. et al v. Armstrong et al

Filing 76

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER granting 74 Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction. The Preliminary Injunction at 69 Memorandum Decision and Order is vacated. Signed by Judge B. Lynn Winmill. (caused to be mailed to non Registered Participants at the addresses listed on the Notice of Electronic Filing (NEF) by cjm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO

AFFILIATES, Inc.; HUMAN SERVICE
CONNECTION, Inc.; H.A.S., Inc.,
ALTERNATIVE NURSING
SERVICES, Inc.; A WAY THROUGH
COUNSELING CENTER, Inc.;
CENTRAL IDAHO AFFILIATES, Inc.;
DUNSTAN HALL & ASSOCIATES,
Inc.; PROVIDER AFFILIATE
AGENCY, Inc.; ROBINSON &
AFFILIATES, Inc.; SCOTT
COMMUNITY CARE, PLLC;
TOMORROW’S HOPE SATELLITE
SERVICES, Inc.; WILLIAMS &
URALDE, Inc.,

Case No. 1:09-cv-00149-BLW
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND
ORDER

Plaintiffs,
v.
RICHARD ARMSTRONG and LESLIE
CLEMENT, in their official capacities,
Defendants.
Before the Court is Defendant’s Motion (Dkt. 74) to Vacate Preliminary
Injunction, filed October 19, 2011. Defendant filed a Notice (Dkt. 75) of Non-Response

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 1

on December 7, 2011, noting Plaintiffs’ failure to oppose or otherwise respond to
Defendant’s Motion.
The Ninth Circuit has held that a district court may properly grant a motion to
dismiss pursuant to a local rule, for failure to respond. See generally Ghazali v. Moran,
46 F.3d 52, 53 (9th Cir. 1995). Also, the local rules expressly provide that a party’s
failure to file either a notice of non-opposition, or a memorandum in opposition to a
motion, may be deemed as a consent to the relief requested. D. Id. L. Civ. R. 7.1(e).
Notably, Plaintiffs filed a timely response to Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Preliminary
Injunction in the related case – Knapp et al. v. Armstrong (Case No. 1:11-cv-00307BLW), which the Court heard jointly with this matter, concerning motions for
preliminary injunction. See Resp., Dkt. 25 in 1:11-cv-00307-BLW. In the circumstances,
the Court finds Plaintiffs’ silence on Defendant’s Motion to Vacate more meaningful than
inadvertent. Nonetheless, the substance of Defendant’s Motion is worthy of
consideration.
The Court previously granted Plaintiff’s Motion (Dkt. 61) to Amend Preliminary
Injunction. Order, Dkt. 69. In its decision, the Court enjoined the IDHW from
implementing its proposed contract with Community Partnerships of Idaho until the
IDHW first received approval from CMS regarding the relevant waiver amendment. Id.
at 19. In its Motion to Vacate the Preliminary Injunction, Defendant provides that CMS
has approved the waiver amendment, as of October 17, 2011, and retroactively effective

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 2

to August 5, 2011. Mot., Dkt. 74-1 at 3-4. In light of CMS’s approval, the Court finds it
appropriate to vacate the preliminary injunction.
ORDER
IT IS ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion to Vacate Preliminary Injunction
(Dkt. 74) is GRANTED. The Preliminary Injunction (Dkt. 69) is VACATED.

DATED: December 9, 2011

_________________________
B. Lynn Winmill
Chief Judge
United States District Court

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - 3