Healthcare Assoc., et al v. Pataki, et al

Filing 96

ORDER --Defendants are hereby directed to file an answer within 20 days of the filing of this Order. Thereafter, Plaintiffs may file a motion for summary judgment within 45 days of the filing of an answer. Opposition and reply papers shall be filed i n accordance with the Local Rules. Answer due 4/13/10. Summary Judgment Motion to be filed by 7/1/2010. David P. Paterson, Andrew M. Cuomo and M. Patricia Smith are substituted for George E. Pataki, Eliot Spitzer, and Linda Angello pursuant FRCP 25(d). Signed by Senior Judge Neal P. McCurn on 3/23/10. (mnm)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF NEW YORK HEALTHCARE ASSOCIATION OF NEW Y O R K STATE, et al., P la in tif f s , - v .D A V ID A. PATERSON, Governor of the State of New York; ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General of the State of New York; a n d M. PATRICIA SMITH, Commissioner o f Labor of the State of New York, D e f e n d a n ts 1 . APPEARANCES: O 'C O N N E L L & ARONOWITZ A tto r n e y s for Plaintiffs 5 4 State Street A lb a n y, NY 12207-2501 H O N . ANDREW M. CUOMO, Attorney General for the State of New York A tto r n e y for Defendants The Capitol A lb a n y, NY 12224 1 2 0 Broadway N e w York, NY 10271 O F COUNSEL: JE F F R E Y J. SHERRIN JA M E S A. SHANNON 1 :0 3 -C V -0 4 1 3 (N P M )

S T E P H E N M. KERWIN A s s is ta n t Attorney General

S E T H KUPFERBERG A s s is ta n t Attorney General

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d), these defendants are substituted for George E. Pataki, Eliot Spitzer and Linda Angello, respectively.

1

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD A m ic u s L e o W. O'Brien Fed. Bldg. Rm. 342 C lin to n Avenue and North Pearl Street A lb a n y, NY 12207 C H A M B E R OF COMMERCE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA J O N E S DAY A m ic u s 2 2 2 East 41 st Street N e w York, NY 10017 N e a l P. McCurn, Senior District Judge

G R E G O R Y C. LEHMAN Field Attorney

W IL L IS J. GOLDSMITH

ORDER Presently before the court is a mandate from the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversing this court's May 17, 2005 Memorandum, Decision and Order g ra n tin g plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. See Healthcare Ass'n of New York S ta te v. Pataki, 388 F.Supp.2d 6 (N.D.N.Y. 2005). Finding material issues of fact, the S e c o n d Circuit remanded this action for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. See Healthcare Ass'n of New York State v. Pataki, 471 F.3d 87 (2d Cir. 2006). Subsequently, the United States Supreme Court issued an opinion in a similar action o rig in a lly brought in the Ninth Circuit. See Chamber of Commerce of the United States v . Brown, 128 S.Ct. 2408 (2008). Accordingly, the parties were directed to brief the im p a c t of said opinion on this action. In addition, the court allowed briefing from amici c u r ia e National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB") and Chamber of Commerce of the U n ite d States of America ("Chamber of Commerce"). Defendants argue that Brown does not disturb the Second Circuit's holding in H e a lth c a re Association which therefore remains binding on this court. Conversely, p la in tif f s as well as amici Chamber of Commerce and NLRB argue that Brown 2

unquestionably invalidates the basis for the Second Circuit's holding. Plaintiffs ask that d e f e n d a n ts be directed to file an answer and plaintiffs be allowed to submit a new motion f o r summary judgment. Generally, under the law of the case doctrine, a district court "may not deviate f ro m a mandate issued by an appellate court, and the appellate court retains the right to c o n tro l the actions of the district court where the mandate has been misconstrued or has n o t been given full effect." Am. Hotel Int'l Group, Inc. v. OneBeacon Ins. Co., No. 092 6 2 7 -c v , 2010 WL 8899261, at *2 (2d Cir. Mar. 12, 2010) (quoting In re Ivan F. Boesky S e c . Litig., 957 F.2d 65, 69 (2d Cir. 1992). However, "a district court is not bound by the m a n d a te of the Court of Appeals if the Supreme Court has subsequently changed or c la rif ie d the relevant law." Wilson v. Great Am. Indus., Inc., 770 F.Supp. 85, 89 (N .D .N .Y . 1991) (citing Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Farr, 383 F.2d 166, 178 (2d Cir. 1 9 6 7 ), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 956, 88 S.Ct. 1038 (1968)). Having reviewed the relevant caselaw as well as the extensive briefing on the is s u e s , the court concludes that the Supreme Court's holding in Brown changes the re le v a n t law, thereby relieving this court from the Second Circuit's mandate in this case. Accordingly, Defendants are hereby directed to file an answer within 20 days of the filing o f this Order. Thereafter, Plaintiffs may file a motion for summary judgment within 45 d a ys of the filing of an answer. Opposition and reply papers shall be filed in accordance w ith the Local Rules. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: M a rc h 23, 2010 S yra c u s e , New York

3