GENEVA COLLEGE v. SEBELIUS et al

Filing 104

ORDER denying 96 Motion for an Indicative Ruling pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1. Signed by Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti on 10/18/2013. (ten)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENEVA COLLEGE, et aI.,
Plaintiffs,
v.

K.A THLEEN SEBELIUS, et aI.,
Defendants.

)
)

)

) Civil No. 12-0207
)
)
)

MEMORANDUM ORDER
Pending before the court is a motion for an indicative ruling filed by the
defendants Kathleen Sebelius, et ai. ("defendants"). (ECF No. 96.) Defendants ask this court to
issue an order, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 indicating that the court would
vacate its April 19, 2013 and June 18, 2013 orders if the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
remanded the currently-pending appeals from those orders back to this court. Those two orders
preliminarily enjoined defendants from enforcing the preventative services coverage regulations
as to the Hepler plaintiffs and as to Geneva College's student group health plan ("Geneva") (Id.
at 1.) Plaintiffs filed a briefin opposition to the government's request (ECF No. 103.) For the
reasons that follow, the defendants' motion is denied.
According to defendants, the Hepler injunction is in direct conflict with the Court
of Appeals for the Third Circuit's July 26,2013 decision in Conestoga Wood Specialties, Inc. v.
Sebelius, ~ F.3d _, 2013 WL 3845365, which held that "a for-profit, secular corporation
cannot engage in the exercise of religion" and that a corporation's owners' constitutional rights
cannot "pass through" to the company. (ECF No. 97 at 1.) With respect to the Geneva
injunction, the government contends that its enactment of final rules in July of 20 13 makes this

court's injunction, which was based on a prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, moot (Id. at 2.)
The govenunent further argues that any injunction in favor of Geneva would be premature
because the contraceptive coverage requirement will not be enforced with respect to Geneva's
student group health plan until August 1,2014 (Id.)

Plaintiffs assert that the court of appeals' decision in Conestoga is both
distinguishable from the Hepler plaintiffs' claims and non-final as it is currently subject to
review by the United States Supreme Court to resolve a direct circuit conflict (ECF No.1 03 at
2.) With respect to the injunction issued in favor of Geneva, plaintiffs argue that, due to
circumstances created by the govenunent, it is not clear whether the safe harbor provision
included in the final rules will insulate Geneva against enforcement of the contraceptive
coverage requirement until August 2014 (Id.)

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 62.1 allows a district court to issue an indicative
ruling on a motion for relief from judgment when ruling on such a motion is barred by a pending
appeal. FED. R. CIY. P. 62.1. A district court can dispose ofa motion pursuant to this rule in
one of four ways: (1) it may defer considering the motion; (2) it may deny the motion; (3) it may
state that it would grant the motion if the court of appeals remands for that purpose; or (4) it may
state that the motion raises a substantial issue.

hL

When the district court indicates that it would

grant the motion for relief, the court of appeals may remand at its discretion. FED. R. App. P.
12.1(b).

The court of appeals' decision in Conestoga does not compel issuance of an
indicative ruling with respect to the Hepler plaintiff's injunction. First, as plaintiffs' aptly point
out, there are legally consequential distinctions between the plaintiffs in that case and in the

2

instant case. Setting aside the differences in corporate structures, Conestoga did not include
claims brought by individual family member-employees. For that reason alone, it would be
improper for this court to speculate, without the benefit of full briefing and oral argument, on the
effect that the decision in Conestoga would have on the instant matter if remanded. Second,
within days of filing a notice of appeal from this court's June 18, 2013 Geneva injunction,
defendants asked the court of appeals to hold that appeal in abeyance pending issuance of the
court's decision in Conestoga. In that filing, defendants stated that "[i]f[the court of appeals]
accepts the government's contentions in Conestoga Wood, the claims in [the Geneva injunction
appeal] will fail for the same reasons" (Id. at

~

3.) The court of appeals ruled in favor of the

government in Conestoga, yet denied defendants' motion to hold the Geneva appeal in abeyance
the day after issuing its mandate in Conestoga. Geneva College v. Sebelius, No. 13-2814, Doc.
003111368643, 8/23113 Order (3d Cir.); Conestoga Wood Specialties, et al. v. Sebelius, No. 13­
1144, Doc. 003111366443, 8/22/13 Mandate (3d Cir.). Defendants' motion promptly made the
court of appeals aware of its position regarding the effect of the Conestoga decision on its appeal
of this court's Geneva injunction. Yet, the court of appeals did not stay the appeal pending
resolution of the Conestoga appeal. Under the circumstances, this court need not opine on that
same issue in the procedural context of a request for an indicative ruling. Finally, the court of
appeals' decision in Conestoga is the subject of a petition for writ of certiorari filed with the
United States Supreme Court. Conestoga Wood Specialties, et al. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356
(U.S.). Responses to the petition are due on October 21, 2013. It would be particularly
inappropriate, and premature, for this court to issue an indicative ruling based on the court of
appeals' decision in Conestoga under the circumstances.

3

Likewise, the government's issuance of final rules does not does not compel
issuance of an indicative ruling with respect to the Geneva injunction. Plaintiffs fIled a motion
for leave to file a second amended complaint, which challenges the same final rules that the
government maintains require an indicative ruling. Were the court to enter the order being
requested by the government, plaintiffs' proposed amended pleading would be effectively pre­
judged in its entirety. Such a procedural short-circuiting of the adversary process is
inappropriate.

For the foregoing reasons, defendants' motion for an indicative ruling (ECF No.
96) is DENIED.

BY THE COURT,

Dated: October 18, 2013

4