Dordt College et al v. Sebelius et al

Filing 54

ORDER granting 53 Motion to Stay. This case is stayed pending the USCA decision. Once the appeal has concluded, the parties shall file a status report within 15 days. Signed by Judge Mark W Bennett on 10/27/2014. (des)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA
WESTERN DIVISION
DORDT COLLEGE and
CORNERSTONE UNIVERSITY,
No. C 13-4100-MWB
Plaintiffs,
vs.
SYLVIA M. BURWELL, in her official
capacity as Secretary, United States
Department of Health and Human
Services, et al.,

ORDER REGARDING
DEFENDANTS’ UNOPPOSED
MOTION TO STAY THIS COURT’S
PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL

Defendants.
___________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. 

INTRODUCTION........................................................................... 2 

II. 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY ............................................................... 2 

III. 

ANALYSIS ................................................................................... 2 

IV. 

CONCLUSION .............................................................................. 5 

I.

INTRODUCTION

The defendants’ Unopposed Motion To Stay District Court Proceedings Pending
Appeal (hereafter Stay Motion) (docket no. 53) is before me. The defendants’ Stay
Motion requests that I enter an order staying all proceedings in this case pending the
appeal of my preliminary injunction order to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. Stay
Motion at 1. The defendants’ motion notes that the “Plaintiffs’ counsel indicated that
plaintiffs do not oppose this motion.” Id.
II.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On June 26, 2014, I granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction,
(docket no. 46), following which the defendants appealed (docket no. 49). Most recently,
I filed an order reserving ruling on the defendants’ dispositive motion, and the plaintiffs’
claims and requested remedies (docket no. 52). In doing so, I ordered the parties to file
supplemental briefs by October 29, 2014, because of a recent United States Supreme
Court decision, Wheaton College v. Burwell, 134 S.Ct. 2806, 2807 (2014), and the
interim final regulations published by the United States Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS) that became effective on August 27, 2014. See Coverage of Certain
Preventive Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 51092-01, 51092 (Aug.
27, 2014). My order reserving ruling on the defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, or in the
Alternative, for Summary Judgment, (docket no. 12), “invite[d] the parties to weigh in
on the impact of the interim rules issued by the administration, following the United
States Supreme Court’s interim order in Wheaton College, 134 S. Ct. at 2807.”
III.

ANALYSIS

“Generally, courts consider the following factors in determining whether to grant
a stay: ‘(1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage
2

to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify the issues in question and trial
of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date has been set.”
Middleton, Inc. v. Minnesota Mining and Mfg. Co., 2004 WL 1968669, at 3 (S.D. Iowa
Aug. 24, 2004) (citation omitted).
First, the plaintiffs have not objected to the defendants’ Stay Motion.
Additionally, the plaintiffs have not argued that an order staying all the district court
proceedings would be prejudicial to their interests in this case or disadvantage the
plaintiffs in some way. The parties have oral arguments in St. Louis, Missouri, in
December of this year, and thus, the appellate court will soon be deciding the case.
Second, as argued in the defendants’ Stay Motion, “the merits of the plaintiffs’
religious Freedom Restoration Act claim . . . are likely to be addressed by the Eighth
Circuit [Court of Appeals] in adjudicating defendants’ appeal of this Court’s denial of a
preliminary injunction.” Stay Motion at 2. If this litigation continued at the district court
level, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and I would be considering the same issues
contested by the same parties. For example, the issues raised by the arguments in the
defendants’ dispositive motion, such as the plaintiffs’ claims lack merit, are analogous to
the issues on appeal because the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals will decide the question
of likelihood of success on the merits when affirming or reversing my preliminary
injunction order. Thus, the stay will likely “simplify,” if not resolve, “the issues in
question.” Middleton, Inc., 2004 WL 1968669, at 3 (citation omitted).
Third, in the present case, the litigation began on October 23, 2013 (docket no.
1). The case is not set for trial. While it is true that the parties have spent a considerable
amount of time and money on the pending litigation to date, it is not “too far along the
road to justify halting the journey while the defendant[s] explore[] an alternate route.”
Id. (quoting Enprotech Corp. v. Autotech Corp., 1990 WL 37217, at 1–2 (N.D. Ill. Mar.
16, 1990)). My decision to stay the proceedings will save the litigants considerable
3

expense because, without a stay, the parties would be required to research, write, and
file briefs prior to October 29, 2014, as required by my order requesting additional
briefing, dated September 29, 2014 (docket no. 52). The Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals
is also likely to resolve most, if not all, of the questions that are currently before me.
The defendants direct me to two cases where district courts have considered similar
challenges to those presented by the plaintiffs and “have stayed district court proceedings
under similar circumstances.”1 Stay Motion at 2. For example, in University of Notre
Dame v. Burwell, the plaintiffs brought a claim challenging the same regulatory scheme
at issue in this case. There, unlike in the present case, the plaintiff’s motion for a
preliminary injunction was denied and the plaintiff appealed. No. 3:13-cv-01276 at 1.
The district court for the Northern District of Indiana stayed all of the district court’s
proceedings “during the pendency of the appeal to the Seventh Circuit of the denial of
Notre Dame’s request for a preliminary injunction.” Id.
Similarly, in Diocese of Cheyenne v. Burwell, the plaintiffs’ motion for a
preliminary injunction was denied, following which the plaintiffs challenged the court’s
decision. No. 14-cv-21 at 1. In Diocese of Cheyenne, the district court for the District
of Wyoming stayed all of the district court’s proceedings “pending the Tenth Circuit’s
adjudication of the Plaintiffs’ appeal or upon further order of this Court.” Id.

1

The defendants cite to “Diocese of Cheyenne v. Burwell, No. 14-cv-21 (W.D. Okla.,
June 2, 2014),” and “Univ. of Notre Dame v. Burwell, No. 3:13-cv-01276 (N.D. Ind.,
Jan. 2, 2014).” Stay Motion at 2. The defendants incorrectly cite to Diocese of Cheyenne
v. Burwell, which was a case decided by the federal district court for the District of
Wyoming, not the Western District of Oklahoma.
4

IV.

CONCLUSION

Based on the anticipated decision of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and its
impact on the resolution of this case, and the plaintiffs’ consent to the defendants’ Stay
Motion, I find that it is in the interests of justice, judicial economy of resources and time,
and efficiency for me to stay all of the district court proceedings. See Landis v. N. Am.
Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936) (“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the
power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with
economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”); see also
Mediterranean Enterprises, Inc. v. Ssangyong Corp., 708 F.2d 1458, 1465 (9th Cir.
1983) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the
fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of
independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”). Hence, it is ordered that the
defendants’ Stay Motion is granted. In addition, it is also ordered that this case is stayed
pending the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals’s decision of the defendants’ appeal of my
order granting plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction, or upon further order by me. Once the
appeal has concluded, the parties shall notify me within 15 days by filing a status report
indicating, if, and how, further proceedings should be scheduled in this court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 27th of October, 2014.

________________________________
MARK W. BENNETT
U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF IOWA

5