Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 17 views

    Order To Adjust Schedule

    Uploaded by

    Basseem
    The court denies the defendants' request to hold the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in abeyance and to set a new briefing schedule. The defendants had asked for this based on a representation that HHS would delay enforcing the challenged rule until November 2019. However, the court notes there has been no official postponement of the rule. As such, the existing briefing schedule remains in place, with the defendants' opposition due by July 1st and the hearing set for July 17th. The defendants are warned that only an official postponement of the effective date of the rule, not just indications of a delay, would be sufficient to change the briefing schedule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Order To Adjust Schedule

    Uploaded by

    Basseem
    17 views2 pages
    The court denies the defendants' request to hold the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in abeyance and to set a new briefing schedule. The defendants had asked for this based on a representation that HHS would delay enforcing the challenged rule until November 2019. However, the court notes there has been no official postponement of the rule. As such, the existing briefing schedule remains in place, with the defendants' opposition due by July 1st and the hearing set for July 17th. The defendants are warned that only an official postponement of the effective date of the rule, not just indications of a delay, would be sufficient to change the briefing schedule.

    Original Description:

    San Fran v. Azar

    Original Title

    Order to Adjust Schedule

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The court denies the defendants' request to hold the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in abeyance and to set a new briefing schedule. The defendants had asked for this based on a representation that HHS would delay enforcing the challenged rule until November 2019. However, the court notes there has been no official postponement of the rule. As such, the existing briefing schedule remains in place, with the defendants' opposition due by July 1st and the hearing set for July 17th. The defendants are warned that only an official postponement of the effective date of the rule, not just indications of a delay, would be sufficient to change the briefing schedule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    17 views2 pages

    Order To Adjust Schedule

    Uploaded by

    Basseem
    The court denies the defendants' request to hold the plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction in abeyance and to set a new briefing schedule. The defendants had asked for this based on a representation that HHS would delay enforcing the challenged rule until November 2019. However, the court notes there has been no official postponement of the rule. As such, the existing briefing schedule remains in place, with the defendants' opposition due by July 1st and the hearing set for July 17th. The defendants are warned that only an official postponement of the effective date of the rule, not just indications of a delay, would be sufficient to change the briefing schedule.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as pdf or txt
    of 2

    1

    2
    3
    4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
    5
    FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
    6
    7
    8 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN No. C 19-02405 WHA
    9 FRANCISCO, Related to
    No. C 19-02769 WHA
    10 Plaintiff, No. C 19-02916 WHA

    11 v.
    United States District Court

    ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of U.S.


    For the Northern District of California

    12 Department of Health and Human Services; ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’


    13 ROGER SERVERINO, Director, Office for ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO
    Civil Rights, Department of Health and ADJUST SCHEDULE
    14 Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF
    HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; and
    15 DOES 1-25,

    16 Defendants.
    /
    17
    18 The Court has received defendants’ request to hold in abeyance plaintiffs’ motion for

    19 preliminary injunction and to set a briefing schedule for cross motions for summary judgment

    20 (Dkt. No. 50). The motion is principally based on defense counsel’s representation to the Court

    21 that “HHS will delay enforcement of the HHS rule challenged in this case, Protecting Statutory

    22 Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority, 84 Fed. Reg. 23, 170 (May 21,

    23 2018) [hereinafter Final Rule], until November 22, 2010” (Br. at 2).

    24 In support, defense counsel swears, “The Department of Health and Human Services

    25 (HHS) has indicated to the undersigned that it will delay enforcement of the Final Rule until

    26 November 22, 2019” (Takemoto Decl. at ¶ 4).

    27 The problem is that a mere indication HHS “will delay” enforcement of the rule until

    28 November 22 is not the same as an official postponement of the rule. Until there is an official
    postponement, counsel’s and the agency’s “indications” are too uncertain to rely on.
    1 Accordingly, we will proceed with the motion for preliminary injunction until there is an official
    2 postponement.
    3 Defendants are already in default with the existing briefing schedule. As such, this order
    4 gives defendants until JULY 1, 2019 AT NOON to file their opposition to the pending motion. The
    5 reply will be due JULY 8, 2019 AT NOON. The hearing will remain on JULY 17, 2019 AT 8:00
    6 A.M.

    7 Unfortunately, this extra time for the defendants will come out of the time the Court
    8 needs to review the materials. Counsel should have taken this into account before filing this
    9 half-baked administrative motion.
    10 Defendants are admonished that nothing short of an official postponement of the final
    11 revised rule until a later fixed date will be sufficient to reactivate defendants’ request for relief
    United States District Court
    For the Northern District of California

    12 from the existing briefing schedule. Defendants should not gamble again on this possibility.
    13 Defendants must file their opposition. The administrative motion is DENIED.
    14
    15 IT IS SO ORDERED.
    16
    17 Dated: June 27, 2019.
    WILLIAM ALSUP
    18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
    19
    20
    21
    22
    23
    24
    25
    26
    27
    28

    You might also like