Annex Medical, Inc. et al v. Sebelius et al

Filing 50

ORDER denying 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction pending appeal(Written Opinion). Signed by Senior Judge David S. Doty on 1/17/2013. (PJM)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Civil No. 12-2804(DSD/SER)
ANNEX MEDICAL, INC., STUART
LIND and TOM JANAS,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER

v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official
capacity as Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and
Human Services; HILDA SOLIS, in her
official capacity as Secretary of
the United States Department of Labor;
TIMOTHY GEITHNER, in his official
capacity as Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;
and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE
TREASURY,
Defendants.

This

matter

is

before

the

court

upon

the

motion

for

preliminary injunction pending appeal by plaintiffs Annex Medical,
Inc. (Annex) and Stuart Lind.

Based on a review of the file,

record and proceedings herein, and for the following reasons, the
court denies the motion.
On

November

21,

2012,

plaintiffs

filed

a

motion

for

preliminary injunction, arguing that certain provisions of the
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act violate their rights
under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
the court denied the plaintiffs’ motion.

On January 8, 2013,
See ECF No. 37.

In

response, on January 11, 2013, plaintiffs appealed the January 8,

2013, order to the Eighth Circuit.

See ECF No. 39.

On that same

day, plaintiffs also filed a motion for preliminary injunction
pending appeal

with

this

court,

Appellate Procedure 8(a)(1)(C).

pursuant

to

Federal

Rule

of

In response, the court orally

issued an expedited briefing schedule and determined that oral
argument was unnecessary.

See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b).

“A party must ordinarily move first in the district court for
...

an

order

pending.”

...

granting

an

injunction

Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C).

while

an

appeal

is

For the issuance of an

injunction pending appeal, plaintiff “must meet the requirements
outlined in Dataphase Systems, Inc. v. C L Systems, Inc., 640 F.2d
109 (8th Cir. 1981).”

Shrink Mo. Gov’t PAC v. Adams, 151 F.3d 763,

764 (8th Cir. 1998).

In the present action, plaintiffs raise no

new arguments under Dataphase.1

Therefore, the court incorporates

its analysis from the January 8, 2013, order and determines that a

1

Plaintiffs do argue, however, that the court’s January 8,
2013, order improperly interpreted the Eighth Circuit’s stay
pending appeal in O’Brien v. U.S. Department of Health & Human
Services, No. 12-3357 (8th Cir. Nov. 28, 2012).
Specifically,
plaintiffs argue that a likelihood of success exists because the
practical effect of the Eighth Circuit’s stay in O’Brien is
tantamount to a preliminary injunction. As previously explained,
however, the one-sentence motions panel decision can also be
interpreted as staying the enforcement of the judgment of the
district court pending appeal. This notion is confirmed by the
fact that the Eighth Circuit issued a stay pending appeal, despite
the plaintiffs styling the motion as one for preliminary injunction
and briefing the motion under Dataphase. As a result, the court is
still of the belief that O’Brien does not necessitate a finding
that plaintiffs have established a likelihood of success on the
merits in the underlying action.
2

balancing of the Dataphase factors counsels against injunctive
relief.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion

for preliminary injunction pending appeal [ECF No. 45] is denied.
Dated:

January 17, 2013
s/David S. Doty
David S. Doty, Judge
United States District Court

3