BRANDT, BISHOP OF THE ROMAN CATHOLIC DIOCESE OF GREENSBURG et al v. SEBELIUS et al
Filing
15
ORDER denying 11 Motion to Reassign Case. Signed by Judge Arthur J. Schwab on 5/29/2014. (lmt)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
MOST REVEREND LAWRENCE E.
BRANDT, Bishop of the Roman Catholic
Diocese of Greensburg, as Trustee of the
Roman Catholic Diocese of Greensburg, a
Charitable Trust, ET AL.,
14cv0681
ELECTRONICALLY FILED
Plaintiffs,
v.
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, In Her Official
Capacity as Secretary of the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, ET AL.,
Defendants.
MEMORANDUM ORDER
Presently before this Court is Defendants’ Motion for Reassignment which contends that
because the instant case allegedly is not related to case numbers 13cv0930 (Pohl v. United States
Dep’t. of Health & Human Svcs.,) (“Pohl”) and 13cv1459 (Zubik v. Sebelius,) (“Zubik”), both of
which were assigned to the undersigned, this case should be randomly assigned, or in the
alternative, re-assigned to Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti.1 Doc. no. 11, p. 3. Plaintiffs filed a
Response to the Motion for Reassignment (doc. no. 12) and thus, the matter is ripe for
adjudication. For the reasons set forth below, the Court will deny the Motion for Reassignment.
1
The Court notes that Defendants’ Motion contends that Plaintiffs marked the case as also being related
to the Erie-based lawsuit, Persico v. Sebelius, 13cv0303. However, the Civil Cover Sheet does not
indicate same. See doc. no. 1-1. Additionally, the Plaintiffs’ Response to the Motion for Reassignment
indicates that they only marked this case as being related to the two Pittsburgh-based lawsuits, referenced
above.
I.
DISCUSSION
“Like some other courts, this Court has adopted a procedure to assign related cases to the
same judge, who has familiarity with them . . . .” Coulter v. Studeny, CIV.A. 12-0338, 2012 WL
2829948, *2 (W.D. Pa. July 10, 2012). The relevant Local Rule of Civil Procedure for the
United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania governing the assignment
of newly filed cases reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
C. Assignment of Civil Actions. Each civil action shall be assigned to a Judge
who shall have charge of the case. The assignment shall be made by the Clerk
of Court from a non-sequential list of all Judges arranged in each of the various
categories. Sequences of Judges’ names within each category shall be kept
secret and no person shall directly or indirectly ascertain or divulge or attempt to
ascertain or divulge the name of the Judge to whom any case may be assigned
before the assignment is made by the Clerk of Court.
D. Related Actions. At the time of filing any civil or criminal action or entry of
appearance or filing of the pleading or motion of any nature by defense counsel,
as the case may be, counsel shall indicate on an appropriate form whether the
action is related to any other pending or previously terminated actions in this
Court. Relatedness shall be determined as follows:
*
*
*
2. [C]ivil actions are deemed related when an action filed relates to
property included in another action, or involves the same issue of fact, or
it grows out of the same transaction as another action, or involves the
validity or infringement of a patent involved in another action; . . .
*
*
*
E. Assignment of Related Actions.
1. If the fact of relatedness is indicated on the appropriate form at time of
filing, the Clerk of Court shall assign the case to the same Judge to whom
the lower numbered related case is assigned.
*
*
*
LCvR 40.
2
As noted above, when Plaintiffs filed this case, they marked it as being “related to” case
numbers 13cv0930, Pohl, and 13cv1459, Zubik, both of which were previously assigned to the
undersigned. See Civil Cover Sheet, doc. no. 1-1.
Defendants argue that the present case is “unrelated to either Zubik or Pohl.” However,
Defendants concede that the three cases “loosely relate to the same subject matter – the
contraceptive coverage requirement of the preventative services coverage regulations[.]”
Despite this concession, Defendants contend that either: (1) the relationship is insufficient to
meet the definition of the above-quoted Local Rule of Civil Procedure; or (2) if Plaintiffs marked
this matter as related because it raises “similar objections to the regulations promulgated by
Defendants[,]” this matter should be reassigned to Chief Judge Joy Flowers Conti who presides
over the first-filed, Pittsburgh-based challenge to preventative services coverage regulations in
the Western District, Geneva College v. Sebelius, 12cv0207 (“Geneva”).2
Plaintiffs respond that reassignment is not warranted because this case is “identical in all
material respects to the Zubik case.” Doc. no. 12, p. 4. All of the Plaintiffs in this case
participate in the same benefits trust as all of the Plaintiffs in Zubik and, thus, the facts regarding
health care insurance offered through the benefits trust are identical.
Moreover, Plaintiffs contend that the primary legal issues in these cases (Zubik and the
instant matter) are identical. Specifically, whether a Bishop of the Catholic Church, who serves
2
The Court notes that there was at least one other earlier case filed in the United States Court for the
Western District of Pennsylvania which challenged the preventative services coverage regulations and
pre-dates the filing of Geneva. See Trautman v. Sebelius, 12cv0123. The Trautman case was an Eriebased case which was assigned to former Chief Judge McLaughlin, and was closed on January 22, 2013.
Trautman was the then-Bishop of the Diocese of Erie and the Court dismissed the Trautman lawsuit upon
Defendants’ Motion for lack of subject matter jurisdiction primarily holding that the matter was not ripe.
When the Zubik Plaintiffs and Persico Plaintiffs filed their respective lawsuits in Pittsburgh and Erie on
October 8, 2013, both sets of Plaintiffs marked their case as related to Pohl (which had been assigned to
the undersigned). Defendants in both cases filed a Motion for Reassignment, and this Court denied both
Motions, filing a short Order in each case. See Zubik (13cv1459) at doc. no. 24, and Persico (13cv303) at
doc. no. 29.
3
as the Chairman of the Board of Catholic Charities and as the Trustee for St. John Evangelist
Regional Catholic School, can comply with the preventative services coverage regulations
promulgated under the Affordable Care Act and thereby act in manner inconsistent with Catholic
doctrines and tenets. See doc. no. 12, p. 5.
The Court finds that the instant matter “involves the same issue(s) of fact,” and/or “it
grows out of the same transaction as another action” – Zubik – as required for a case to be
deemed related pursuant to LCvR 40.
In addition, this Court has previously written on the relationship of Pohl to Zubik. In the
Zubik case, this Court held:
. . . [Pohl] “involves the same issues of fact” and/or “grows out of the same
transactions.” See Local Rule 40(D)(2). All three cases (the FOIA case and the
two above-referenced cases) generally relate to Plaintiffs’ objections to the
regulations promulgated by The United States Department of Health and Human
Services pursuant to the Affordable Care Act.
Zubik v. Sebelius, 13cv1459, doc. no. 24, p. 3.
Here, because the Court has now concluded that the present matter is akin to Zubik, and
because this Court has previously found Zubik to be related to Pohl, the Court concludes that this
matter is, likewise, related to Pohl.
II.
CONCLUSION
Therefore, based upon the foregoing, the Court will DENY Defendants’ Motion to
Reassign.3 Doc. no. 11.
3
The Court further finds that this case is not related to the Geneva case. Because Defendants raise this
argument in their Motion, the Court will attempt to briefly address same. First, the named Plaintiffs in
this case are more akin to the named Plaintiffs in Zubik (13 cv1459), than to the entity listed as the named
Plaintiff in Geneva (12cv207). Second, because of the differences between the Plaintiffs in this case (as
well as those Plaintiffs in the Zubik case) as compared to the Plaintiff entity in the Geneva case, the issues
before Chief Judge Conti and this Court differ in both analysis and application of the current case law
governing the application of the preventative services coverage regulations promulgated under the
Affordable Care Act. Compare doc nos. 114-115 in Geneva College v. Sebilus, 12cv0207, to doc. nos.
4
SO ORDERED, this 29th day of May, 2014.
s/ Arthur J. Schwab
Arthur J. Schwab
United States District Court Judge
75-76 in Zubik v. Sebelius, 13cv1459. Accordingly, the Court does not agree that this case is “related” to
Geneva as suggested by Defendants. See doc. no. 11, p. 3.
5
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?