Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. D/B/A ZUMBIEL PACKAGING, 2100 Gateway Blvd., Hebron, KY 41048

ROBERT W. ZUMBIEL, 2100 Gateway Blvd., Hebron, KY 41048
THOMAS J. ZUMBIEL, 2100 Gateway Blvd., Hebron, KY 41048

Civil No. _________ Judge ___________

Plaintiffs, vs.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, 200 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C., 20201
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, 200 Independence Avenue S.W. Washington, D.C., 20201
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220
JACOB J. LEW, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury, 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20220
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210
THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 16
Department of Labor, 200 Constitution Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20210
Defendants.
Plaintiffs Zumbiel Packaging (“Zumbiel”), Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel (“Owners”) bring this complaint against Defendants United States Department of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of the Treasury, Jacob J. Lew, United States Department of Labor, Thomas E. Perez, and their successors in office, and in support thereof allege the following based on information and belief:
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs seek judicial review concerning Defendants’ violations of Plaintiffs’ constitutional and statutory rights in connection with Defendants’ promulgation and implementation of certain regulations adopted under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (hereafter “Affordable Care Act”), specifically those regulations mandating that non-exempt employers include in employee health benefit plans coverage of certain goods and services, regardless of whether the provision of such coverage violates the employer’s religious beliefs and moral values. 2. Plaintiffs ask the court for declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of the Final Rule confirmed and promulgated by the Defendants on February 15, 2012, mandating that group health plans include coverage, without cost sharing, for “all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (“the Mandate”) see 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv), as confirmed at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), adopting and quoting Health Resources and Services Administration
2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 3 of 16
(“HRSA”) Guidelines found at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines. 3. Plaintiffs Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel are adherents of the Catholic
religion. As the individuals with the controlling interest in Plaintiff Zumbiel, Plaintiffs Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel wish to conduct their business in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith.
4. Plaintiffs have concluded that complying with the Mandate would require them to violate their religious beliefs because it would require them and/or the corporations they control to pay for, not only contraception and sterilization, but also abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.
5. Plaintiffs contend that by requiring them to choose between conducting their business in a manner consistent with their religion, or paying ruinous fines and penalties, the Mandate violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution and violates the Administrative Procedure Act.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 6. This court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), and 1346(a)(2) because it is a civil action against agencies and officials of the United States based on claims arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and regulations of executive departments and it seeks equitable or other relief under an Act of Congress, and also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361, as this court may compel officers and agencies of the United States to perform a duty owed Plaintiffs. 7. This court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 5
3

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 4 of 16
U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65.
8. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e) because Defendants reside in this district and a substantial part of the acts giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.
9. This court has the authority to award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
IDENTIFICATION OF THE PARTIES 10. The Plaintiffs to this action are Zumbiel, Robert W. Zumbiel, and Thomas J. Zumbiel. 11. Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel are individuals and citizens of the States of Kentucky and Ohio, respectively, and the United States of America. 12. Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel each hold ownership stakes in Zumbiel, and together they own the controlling interest, and set the policies governing the conduct of all phases of Zumbiel’s operations. 13. Zumbiel is a closely-held and family-owned for-profit company. It has approximately three hundred fifty (350) full-time employees. 14. Zumbiel’s principal place of business is located at 2100 Gateway Blvd. in Hebron, Kentucky. It is incorporated under the laws of the State of Ohio. 15. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (hereafter “HHS”) is an agency of the United States and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate. 16. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is Secretary of HHS and is named as a party only in her official capacity.
4

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 5 of 16
17. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
18. Defendant Jacob J. Lew is Secretary of the Treasury and is named as a party only in his official capacity.
19. Defendant United States Department of Labor (hereafter “DOL”) is an agency of the United States and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
20. Defendant Thomas E. Perez is Secretary of DOL and is named as a party only in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 21. Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. They sincerely believe that actions intended to terminate an innocent human life by abortion are gravely sinful. 22. Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel also sincerely believe in the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the immorality of artificial means of contraception and sterilization. 23. Robert W. Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel manage and operate Zumbiel, a manufacturer of paperboard packaging for consumer goods, in a way that reflects the teachings, mission, and values of their Catholic faith, and they desire to continue to do so. 24. Examples of how Plaintiffs further their religious beliefs and moral values include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. Zumbiel had excluded all forms of artificial birth control (both female and male) from coverage under its health care plans for as long as Zumbiel had provided health care insurance to its associates until being forced to do so by the Mandate’s threat of ruinous fines and penalties.
5

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 6 of 16
b. Likewise, Zumbiel had excluded all forms of abortion, whether surgical or pharmacological, from coverage under its health care plans for as long as Zumbiel had provided health care insurance to its associates.
c. Zumbiel prohibits its sales representatives from accepting orders for packaging related to artificial birth control, e.g., condom boxes, and/or abortifacients.
d. Zumbiel suspends all business operations on major Catholic holidays such as Christmas and Easter regardless of the impact on profitability.
25. Zumbiel employees are covered by a group policy of health insurance. Like other noncash benefits provided to employees, Plaintiffs consider the provision of employee health insurance an integral component of furthering their mission, values, and religious beliefs.
26. Plaintiffs believe they cannot arrange for, pay for, provide, or facilitate employee health plan coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, or related education and counseling without violating their sincerely-held religious beliefs and moral values.
27. The Mandate’s direct violation of Catholic Faith is well recognized. For example, Cardinal Timothy Dolan, Archbishop of New York and President of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has written: “Since January 20 [2012], when the final, restrictive HHS Rule was first announced, we have become certain of two things: religious freedom is under attack, and we will not cease our struggle to protect it. We recall the words of our Holy Father Benedict XVI to our brother bishops on their recent ad limina visit: ‘Of particular concern are certain attempts being made to limit that most cherished of American freedoms, the freedom of religion.’ . . . We have made it clear in no uncertain terms to the government that we are not at peace with its invasive attempt to curtail the religious freedom we cherish as Catholics and Americans.” (http://www.usccb.org., March 2, 2012). And Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, the
6

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 7 of 16
Archbishop of Philadelphia, has stated that the Affordable Care Act and Mandate seek “to coerce Catholic employers, private and corporate, to violate their religious convictions . . . [t]he HHS mandate, including its latest variant, is belligerent, unnecessary, and deeply offensive to the content of Catholic belief. . . .” (http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/02/14/archbishop-chaputhhs-mandate-dangerous-and-insulting/, Feb. 14, 2012).
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MANDATE 28. Under the Mandate being challenged herein and related Affordable Care Act provisions, an employer of fifty or more full-time employees, such as Plaintiffs, must offer, unless exempted, a group health plan to employees that includes coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related education and counseling. Failure to comply with the Mandate results in ruinous fines and penalties. 29. “Grandfathered” health plans are exempted from the Mandate. Such plans were in existence as of the enactment of the Affordable Care Act on or about March 23, 2010, and have not since been materially changed. 30. Plaintiffs’ group health plan is not “grandfathered” as Zumbiel, in seeking to improve continually the quality of its associates’ health care, materially changes components of its plan on an annual basis, and has done so as recently as March 31, 2013. 31. On June 28, 2013, Defendants issued a Final Rule exempting “religious employers,” which are defined as formal churches and religious orders “organized and operate[d]” as nonprofit entities and “referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874. 32. The Final Rule created a separate “accommodation” for certain non-exempt religious organizations. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874. To be eligible, an organization must: (1) “[o]ppose[]
7

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 8 of 16
providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required”; (2) be “organized and operate[d] as a nonprofit entity”; (3) “hold[] itself out as a religious organization”; and (4) “selfcertif[y] that it [has] satisfie[d] the first three criteria.” 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874.
33. The Final Rule extends the previous temporary enforcement safe harbor, giving nonprofit employers with objections to covering contraceptive services through the end of 2013 to comply. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39889; 77 Fed. Reg. at 8725.
34. Plaintiffs do not qualify as “religious employers,” are not eligible for an accommodation, and cannot take advantage of the temporary enforcement safe harbor because of their for-profit status.
35. Accordingly, the Mandate applies to Plaintiffs as they employ fifty or more full-time employees and are not otherwise exempted from the Mandate.
36. The Mandate went into effect on August 1, 2012, for non-exempt for-profit employers, such as Plaintiffs, and the Mandate applied to the first health insurance plan-year starting after August 1, 2012.
37. Plaintiff Zumbiel’s group health plan is due for renewal on December 1, 2013. Plaintiff wishes to renew coverage for its employees while, at the same time, excluding coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling regarding such procedures.
38. Under the terms of the Mandate, Plaintiffs cannot obtain coverage that excludes the aforementioned drugs and services. On the contrary, the Mandate requires Plaintiffs to violate their faith by providing their employees with coverage of those services that Plaintiffs consider sinful and immoral.
39. Plaintiffs are thus subjected to the Mandate and have, so far, chosen to comply with its
8

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 9 of 16
requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, rather than deny health care insurance to their associates, or pay ruinous fines that would cripple their ability to survive economically.
40. The Mandate coerces Plaintiffs into complying with its requirements or abandoning integral components of the Plaintiffs’ religiously inspired mission and values.
41. Plaintiffs lack an adequate or available administrative remedy or, in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
42. Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 43. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 42 and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 44. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from arranging for, paying for, providing, or facilitating coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, abortion, and patient education and counseling related to such procedures. 45. The Mandate, by requiring Plaintiffs to provide such coverage, imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between continuing to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral values or paying substantial annual fines and penalties to the government. 46. The Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest, nor is it necessary to prevent any concrete harm to such an interest. 47. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to furthering any compelling interest. 48. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ stated
9

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 10 of 16
interests. 49. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate violate rights
secured to Plaintiffs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. 50. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs are suffering
and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT II Violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause 51. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 50 and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 52. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from arranging for, paying for, providing, or facilitating coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, abortion, and patient education and counseling related to such procedures. 53. The Mandate, by requiring Plaintiffs to provide such coverage imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between continuing to conduct their businesses in accordance with their religious beliefs and moral values or paying substantial annual fines and penalties to the government. 54. The Mandate is neither neutral nor generally applicable. 55. The Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest, nor is it necessary to prevent any concrete harm to such an interest. 56. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to furthering any compelling interest. 57. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering the Defendants’ stated interests.
10

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 11 of 16
58. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate violate Plaintiffs’ rights to the free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
59. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT III Violation of the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause 60. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 59 and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 61. The First Amendment protects organizations as well as individuals from being compelled to speak and from being compelled to subsidize the speech of others. 62. Expenditures of money are a form of protected speech. 63. The Mandate compels Plaintiffs to arrange for, pay for, provide, and facilitate coverage for education and counseling related to contraception, sterilization, and abortion, which is speech to which Plaintiffs’ morally object. 64. Plaintiffs believe that the aforementioned services, activities, and practices covered by the Mandate are contrary to their sincerely-held religious beliefs. 65. The Mandate compels Plaintiffs to subsidize goods, services, activities, practices, and speech that Plaintiffs believe to be immoral and, thereby, violates Plaintiffs’ right to be free from uttering, subsidizing, or supporting compelled speech with which Plaintiffs disagree on religious and moral grounds. 66. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of the Mandate violate
11

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 12 of 16
Plaintiffs’ free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
67. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT IV Violation of Equal Protection 68. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 67 and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 69. Numerous religious employers are exempted from the Mandate’s requirement to provide the objected-to contraceptive services. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874. This exemption extends to entities “organized and operate[d]” as nonprofit entities and “referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the [Internal Revenue] Code.” Nonprofit organizations are defined as “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches,” and “the exclusively religious activities of any religious order” that are exempt from taxation pursuant to 26 U.S.C. § 501(a). 70. Certain non-exempt religious organizations are also provided with a procedural accommodation for their religious beliefs. 78 Fed. Reg. at 39874. To be eligible, an organization must: (1) “[o]ppose[] providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required”; (2) be “organized and operate[d] as a nonprofit entity”; (3) “hold[] itself out as a religious organization”; and (4) “self-certif[y] that it [has] satisfie[d] the first three criteria.” Id. 71. Neither of these exemptions—the one that wholly excludes religious organizations or the one that procedurally alters the Mandate’s contraceptive requirement to accommodate the
12

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 13 of 16
firmly held religious beliefs of non-profits entities—protect for-profit organizations like Zumbiel whose religious beliefs are likewise substantially burdened by the Mandate’s contraceptive requirements.
72. Like these other organizations, Zumbiel is religiously opposed to providing contraceptives as required by the Mandate, has as its mission to advance its religious beliefs in its community (here, the business community), and is the arm through which its constituents live out their religious beliefs in their communities.
73. The law’s failure to include organizations like Zumbiel in these exemptions, and to make Zumbiel comply when the exempted and accommodated organizations do not have to, is irrational and violates Plaintiffs’ right to equal protection of the laws under the Fifth Amendment.
74. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT V Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act 75. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 74 and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 76. The Affordable Care Act expressly delegates to the Health Resources and Services Administration, which is an agency that is part of Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services, the authority to establish “preventive care” guidelines that a group health plan and health insurance issuer must abide by. 77. Given this express delegation, Defendants were obliged to engage in formal notice and
13

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 14 of 16
comment rulemaking as prescribed by law before Defendants issued the guidelines that group health plans and insurers must abide by.
78. Proposed regulations were required to be published in the Federal Register and interested persons were required to be given a chance to take part in the rulemaking through the submission of written data, views, or arguments.
79. Defendants promulgated the “preventive care” guidelines without engaging in the formal notice and comment rulemaking as prescribed by law. Defendants delegated the responsibilities for issuing “preventive care” guidelines to a non-governmental entity, the Institute of Medicine, which did not permit or provide for broad public comment otherwise required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
80. Defendants also failed to engage in the required notice and comment rulemaking when Defendants issued the interim final rules and the final rule that incorporates the “preventive care” guidelines.
81. The Mandate violates Section 1303(b)(1)(A) of the Affordable Care Act, which provides that “nothing in this title” “shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of [abortion] services . . . as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year.” 42 U.S.C. § 18023(b)(1)(A)(i) (codification of Section 1303 of the Affordable Care Act).
82. The Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act as set forth in this complaint.
83. The Mandate violates the First and Fifth Amendments to the United States Constitution as set forth in this complaint.
84. Defendants, in promulgating the Mandate, failed to consider the constitutional and statutory implications of the Mandate on for-profit employers such as Plaintiffs.
14

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 15 of 16
85. The Mandate and Defendants’ actions are arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law or required procedure, and contrary to constitutional right, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2).
86. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 87. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all allegations made above and incorporate those allegations herein by reference, and Plaintiffs request that this court grant them the following relief and enter final judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs:
A. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
B. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
C. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
D. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violate the Equal Protection guarantee of the Fifth Amendment;
E. Enter a declaratory judgment that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of the Mandate against Plaintiffs violate the Administrative Procedure Act;
F. Enter preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants, their officers,
15

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 16 of 16

agents, servants, employees, successors in office, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them, including any insurance carriers or third party insurance plan administrators with whom Plaintiffs may contract for employee health benefits, from applying and enforcing against Plaintiffs the Mandate and any related regulations, rules, statutes, laws, penalties, fines, or assessments, and prohibiting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, successors in office, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them from applying and enforcing the Mandate against any insurance carriers or third party plan administrators with whom Plaintiffs may seek to contract with respect to the provision or administration of an employee health plan for Plaintiffs’ employees;
G. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees associated with this action; and H. Award Plaintiffs any further relief this court deems equitable and just.
Respectfully submitted on this 22nd day of October, 2013,

Mark T. Hayden (OH Bar No. 0066162)* John B. Nalbandian (OH Bar No. 0073033)* Matthew D. Lawless (OH Bar. No. 0090281)* Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 357-9634 (513) 381-0205 (fax) mhayden@taftlaw.com nalbandian@taftlaw.com mlawless@taftlaw.com
* Pro Hac Vice applications forthcoming

s/ Colby M. May Colby M. May (D.C. Bar No. 394340) American Center for Law & Justice 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 Tel. 202-546-8890; Fax. 202-546-9309 cmmay@aclj-dc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs The C.W. Zumbiel Co., Robert W. Zumbiel, and Thomas J. Zumbiel

16

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 3

&,9,/&29(56+((7

-65HY'&

,D3/$,17,))6

'()(1'$176

T he C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W . Zumbiel and Thomas J. Zumbiel

U nited States Department of Health and Human Services, et a l. (See attached sheet)






Boone 
E&2817<2)5(6,'(1&(2)),567/,67('3/$,17,))BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB (;&(37,1863/$,17,))&$6(6




&2817<2)5(6,'(1&(2)),567/,67(''()(1'$17BWBBBaBsBBhBiBnBBgBtBoBBnBBDBBCBB.
,1863/$,17,))&$6(621/<
127(,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9('

F$77251(<6),501$0($''5(66$1'7(/(3+21(180%(5

$77251(<6,).12:1

C olby M. May, American Center for Law & Justice,

U .S. Department of Justice

2 01 Maryland Avenue, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20002







(202) 546-8890



(See attached sheet)

 

,,%$6,62)-85,6',&7,21 3/$&($1[,121(%2;21/<

o 86*RYHUQPHQW
3ODLQWLII 

o )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ
86*RYHUQPHQW1RWD3DUW\ 

o o 86*RYHUQPHQW

'LYHUVLW\

'HIHQGDQW

,QGLFDWH&LWL]HQVKLSRI

3DUWLHVLQLWHP,,,

,,,&,7,=(16+,32)35,1&,3$/3$57,(63/$&($1[,121(%2;)25

3/$,17,))$1'21(%2;)25'()(1'$17)25',9(56,7<&$6(621/<



37) ')7 

37)

 &LWL]HQRIWKLV6WDWH 

o 


o o 

 ,QFRUSRUDWHGRU3ULQFLSDO3ODFH



 RI%XVLQHVVLQ7KLV6WDWH




&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH
 
&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID )RUHLJQ&RXQWU\

o 

o 


o 

o 


 ,QFRUSRUDWHGDQG3ULQFLSDO

o 

3ODFHRI%XVLQHVVLQ$QRWKHU6WDWH 

 )RUHLJQ1DWLRQ 

o 


')7
o 

o 

o 


,9&$6($66,*10(17$1'1$785(2)68,7
3ODFHDQ;LQRQHFDWHJRU\$1WKDWEHVWUHSUHVHQWV\RXU&DXVHRI$FWLRQDQGRQHLQDFRUUHVSRQGLQJ1DWXUHRI6XLW

o $Antitrust
 
 $QWLWUXVW        

o %Personal Injury/ 

o &Administrative Agency 

Malpractice

Review





$LUSODQH

0HGLFDUH$FW

$LUSODQH3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ $VVDXOW/LEHO 6ODQGHU )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV/LDELOLW\ 0DULQH 0DULQH3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ 0RWRU9HKLFOH 0RWRU9HKLFOH3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ 2WKHU3HUVRQDO,QMXU\ 0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ +HDOWK&DUH3KDUPDFHXWLFDO 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ $VEHVWRV3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ 

 6RFLDO6HFXULW\
+,$II %ODFN/XQJ ',:&',::J 66,'7LWOH;9, 56,J 2WKHU6WDWXWHV $JULFXOWXUDO$FWV (QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV 2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV,I $GPLQLVWUDWLYH$JHQF\LV ,QYROYHG 

o 'Temporary Restraining
Order/Preliminary
Injunction

$Q\QDWXUHRIVXLWIURPDQ\FDWHJRU\ PD\EHVHOHFWHGIRUWKLVFDWHJRU\RIFDVH DVVLJQPHQW  
,I$QWLWUXVWWKHQ$JRYHUQV
   

o (General Civil (Other)25

o )Pro Se General Civil

5HDO3URSHUW\ /DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ )RUHFORVXUH 5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW 7RUWVWR/DQG 7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ $OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\
 3HUVRQDO3URSHUW\
2WKHU)UDXG 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ 2WKHU3HUVRQDO3URSHUW\ 'DPDJH 3URSHUW\'DPDJH 3URGXFW/LDELOLW\

%DQNUXSWF\ $SSHDO86&
:LWKGUDZDO86&
 3ULVRQHU3HWLWLRQV
'HDWK3HQDOW\
0DQGDPXV 2WKHU
&LYLO5LJKWV
3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQV
&LYLO'HWDLQHH±&RQGLWLRQV
RI&RQILQHPHQW
 3URSHUW\5LJKWV
&RS\ULJKWV
3DWHQW
7UDGHPDUN
 )HGHUDO7D[6XLWV
7D[HV86SODLQWLIIRU
GHIHQGDQW
,567KLUG3DUW\86&

)RUIHLWXUH3HQDOW\ 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUHRI 3URSHUW\86& 2WKHU  
2WKHU6WDWXWHV )DOVH&ODLPV$FW 6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW %DQNV %DQNLQJ &RPPHUFH,&& 5DWHVHWF 'HSRUWDWLRQ 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ $SSOLFDWLRQ 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ $FWLRQV 5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHG  &RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQ


 &RQVXPHU&UHGLW &DEOH6DWHOOLWH79 6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV ([FKDQJH $UELWUDWLRQ $GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH $FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI $JHQF\'HFLVLRQ &RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI6WDWH 6WDWXWHV 2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV LIQRWDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDJHQF\ UHYLHZRU3ULYDF\$FW

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 3

o *Habeas Corpus/
2255

o +Employment
Discrimination

o ,FOIA/Privacy Act

o -Student Loan

+DEHDV&RUSXV±*HQHUDO 0RWLRQ9DFDWH6HQWHQFH +DEHDV&RUSXV±$OLHQ
'HWDLQHH

&LYLO5LJKWV±(PSOR\PHQW FULWHULDUDFHJHQGHUVH[ QDWLRQDORULJLQ GLVFULPLQDWLRQGLVDELOLW\DJH UHOLJLRQUHWDOLDWLRQ

)UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ$FW 2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
LI3ULYDF\$FW

5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG 6WXGHQW/RDQ H[FOXGLQJYHWHUDQV

o .Labor/ERISA
(non-employment)


,ISURVHVHOHFWWKLVGHFN

o /Other Civil Rights
(non-employment)

)DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV$FW /DERU0JPW5HODWLRQV /DERU5DLOZD\$FW )DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO /HDYH$FW 2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ (PSO5HW,QF6HFXULW\$FW

9RWLQJLIQRW9RWLQJ5LJKWV $FW +RXVLQJ$FFRPPRGDWLRQV 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV $PHULFDQVZ'LVDELOLWLHV± (PSOR\PHQW $PHULFDQVZ'LVDELOLWLHV± 2WKHU (GXFDWLRQ


,ISURVHVHOHFWWKLVGHFN

o 0Contract
,QVXUDQFH 0DULQH 0LOOHU$FW 1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
 (QIRUFHPHQWRI -XGJPHQW 5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
RI9HWHUDQ¶V%HQHILWV 6WRFNKROGHU¶V6XLWV 2WKHU&RQWUDFWV &RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\ )UDQFKLVH

o 1Three-Judge
Court
&LYLO5LJKWV±9RWLQJ LI9RWLQJ5LJKWV$FW

925,*,1
o 2ULJLQDO
3URFHHGLQJ

o 5HPDQG
IURP6WDWH &RXUW

o 5HPDQGHGIURP
$SSHOODWH&RXUW

o 5HLQVWDWHGRU
5HRSHQHG

o 7UDQVIHUUHGIURP
DQRWKHUGLVWULFW VSHFLI\

o o 0XOWLGLVWULFW $SSHDOWR

/LWLJDWLRQ

'LVWULFW-XGJH

IURP0DJ-XGJH

9, &$86(2)$&7,21&,7(7+(86&,9,/67$787(81'(5:+,&+<28$5(),/,1*$1':5,7($%5,()67$7(0(172)&$86( 5 USC sec. 706; 28 USC secs. 2201-02; 42 USC secs. 2000bb et seq; violation of RFRA, 1st and 5th Amendments; APA

9,, 5(48(67(',1 &203/$,17

&+(&.,)7+,6,6$&/$66 $&7,2181'(5)5&3

'(0$1' -85<'(0$1'

&KHFN<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
✘ <(612

9,,, 5(/$7('&$6(6

6HHLQVWUXFWLRQ

<(6

12 ✘

,I\HVSOHDVHFRPSOHWHUHODWHGFDVHIRUP

,)$1<

'$7(BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'BBBBTBBB$BBPBBMCBBZBB.BBBB.BBBBBZBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB

,16758&7,216)25&203/(7,1*&,9,/&29(56+((7-6 $XWKRULW\IRU&LYLO&RYHU6KHHW

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

,

&2817<2)5(6,'(1&(2)),567/,67('3/$,17,))'()(1'$17E&RXQW\RIUHVLGHQFH8VHWRLQGLFDWHSODLQWLIILIUHVLGHQW

RI:DVKLQJWRQ'&LISODLQWLIILVUHVLGHQWRI8QLWHG6WDWHVEXWQRW:DVKLQJWRQ'&DQGLISODLQWLIILVRXWVLGHWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV

,,,

&,7,=(16+,32)35,1&,3$/3$57,(67KLVVHFWLRQLVFRPSOHWHGRQO\LIGLYHUVLW\RIFLWL]HQVKLSZDVVHOHFWHGDVWKH%DVLVRI-XULVGLFWLRQ

XQGHU6HFWLRQ,,

,9

&$6($66,*10(17$1'1$785(2)68,77KHDVVLJQPHQWRIDMXGJHWR\RXUFDVHZLOOGHSHQGRQWKHFDWHJRU\\RXVHOHFWWKDWEHVW

UHSUHVHQWVWKHSULPDU\FDXVHRIDFWLRQIRXQGLQ\RXUFRPSODLQW<RXPD\VHOHFWRQO\RQHFDWHJRU\<RXPXVWDOVRVHOHFWRQHFRUUHVSRQGLQJ

QDWXUHRIVXLWIRXQGXQGHUWKHFDWHJRU\RIWKHFDVH

9,

&$86(2)$&7,21&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJDQGZULWHDEULHIVWDWHPHQWRIWKHSULPDU\FDXVH

9,,,

5(/$7('&$6(6,)$1<,I\RXLQGLFDWHGWKDWWKHUHLVDUHODWHGFDVH\RXPXVWFRPSOHWHDUHODWHGFDVHIRUPZKLFKPD\EHREWDLQHGIURP WKH&OHUN¶V2IILFH

%HFDXVHRIWKHQHHGIRUDFFXUDWHDQGFRPSOHWHLQIRUPDWLRQ\RXVKRXOGHQVXUHWKHDFFXUDF\RIWKHLQIRUPDWLRQSURYLGHGSULRUWRVLJQLQJWKHIRUP

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-1 Filed 10/22/13 Page 3 of 3
Attachment Sheet to Civil Cover Sheet
The C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, et al. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al.
I. (a) DEFENDANTS (continued):
KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
JACOB J. LEW, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor
I. (c) PLAINTIFFS’ ATTORNEYS (continued):
Mark T. Hayden* John B. Nalbandian* Matthew D. Lawless* Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, Ohio 45202 Phone: (513) 381-2838 Fax: (513) 381-0205 mhayden@taftlaw.com nalbandian@taftlaw.com mlawless@taftlaw.com
* Pro Hac Vice applications forthcoming
13807033.1

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-2 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-3 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-3 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-4 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-4 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-5 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-5 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-6 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-6 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-7 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-7 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-8 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-8 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-9 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-9 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-10 Filed 10/22/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO.

:

D/B/A ZUMBIEL PACKAGING, ET AL :
:

Civil No. _________

Plaintiffs,

: Judge ___________
:

:

vs.

:

:

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

:

OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

: : :

Defendants.

:

CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

:

:

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1: Any nongovernmental corporate party must (1) identify

any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock; or (2)

state that there is no such corporation.

Plaintiff The C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging states there is no parent

corporation or publicly held corporation owning 10% or more of its stock.

Respectfully submitted,

Mark T. Hayden (OH Bar No. 0066162)* John B. Nalbandian (OH Bar No. 0073033)* Matthew D. Lawless (OH Bar. No. 0090281)* Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 357-9634 (513) 381-0205 (fax) mhayden@taftlaw.com nalbandian@taftlaw.com mlawless@taftlaw.com
* Pro Hac Vice applications forthcoming

/s/ Colby M. May Colby M. May (D.C. Bar No. 394340) American Center for Law & Justice 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-8890 (202) 546-9309 (fax) cmmay@aclj-dc.org
Attorneys for Plaintiffs The C.W. Zumbiel Co., Robert W. Zumbiel, and Thomas J. Zumbiel

1

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 1-10 Filed 10/22/13 Page 2 of 2

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 22nd day of October, 2013, the foregoing was filed via the Court’s ECF system, which will electronically serve all counsel of record.

13800907.1

/s/ Colby M. May

2

 </s> Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. D/B/A ZUMBIEL PACKAGING, ET AL,

Plaintiffs, vs.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01611-RBW

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

Defendants. _____________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiffs the C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W. Zumbiel, and Thomas J. Zumbiel (“Plaintiffs”), by and through undersigned counsel, hereby submit this unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction based on their claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C.§ 2000bb et seq.(“RFRA”), and unopposed motion for a stay of all proceedings in this case pending the issuance of the mandate in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.).
In Gilardi, a motions panel of the D.C. Circuit granted an injunction pending appeal and a majority of the merits panel subsequently determined that plaintiffs were likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim. The merits panel left it to the district court to resolve the remaining three preliminary injunction factors. The mandate in Gilardi has not yet issued and plaintiffs in that case have filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court. Gilardi involves legal claims similar to those advanced by Plaintiffs in this case against the same federal regulations and the same federal defendants. Consequently, final resolution of Gilardi will

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 6
invariably affect the legal claims in this case. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit granted the appellants’ motion for an injunction pending appeal, thereby granting the precise relief requested here by Plaintiffs. See Gilardi, No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 29, 2013) (order granting motion for an injunction pending appeal).
In this unopposed motion, Plaintiffs request an order enjoining Defendants, until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi, from enforcing against Plaintiffs, their employee health plans, the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, and/or their insurers the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide their employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or any other enforcement actions for noncompliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.
Defendants believe that Gilardi was wrongly decided. Nevertheless, in light of the motions panel’s decision in Gilardi granting an injunction pending appeal and the merits panel’s decision concluding that plaintiffs in Gilardi were likely to succeed on the merits of their RFRA claim, counsel for Defendants has indicated that Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction on only plaintiffs’ RFRA claim, to last until 30 days after the mandate issues in Gilardi. Although Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion on RFRA grounds at this time, Defendants do not forfeit any legal rights or claims that they may have at a later date. Should this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs further ask this Court to stay all proceedings in this case pending the resolution of the appeal in Gilardi. Defendants do not oppose this request.

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 3 of 6
District courts have broad discretion in deciding whether to issue a stay pending the resolution of proceedings in another case. “[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936); see also, e.g., Air Line Pilots Ass’n v. Miller, 523 U.S. 866, 879 n.6 (1998); Davis v. Billington, 775 F. Supp. 2d 23, 29-30 (D.D.C. 2011). Indeed, “[a] trial court has broad discretion to stay all proceedings in an action pending the resolution of independent proceedings elsewhere.” Hisler v. Gallaudet Univ., 344 F. Supp. 2d 29, 35 (D.D.C. 2004); see also, e.g., IBT/HERE Emp. Representatives’ Council v. Gate Gourmet Divs. Ams., 403 F. Supp. 2d 289, 292 (D.D.C. 2005) (same); Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal., Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979) (“A trial court may, with propriety, find it is efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the case.”).
It would be highly inefficient to spend the resources and time of the parties and this Court for litigation to proceed in this case while Gilardi is being fully resolved. See Ass’n of Irritated Residents v. Fred Schakel Dairy, 634 F. Supp. 2d 1081, 1094 (E.D. Cal. 2008) (“[T]he district court has broad discretion to decide whether a stay is appropriate to promote economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.”). Nor will there be any prejudice to Plaintiffs if the proceedings are stayed, as they will have the benefit of a preliminary injunction during the pendency of the stay. Finally, Plaintiffs note that several district courts have stayed proceedings in similar circumstances in litigation challenging the contraceptive coverage regulations. See, e.g., Order, Willis Law v. Sebelius, 1:13-cv-01124-CKK (D.D.C. Aug. 23, 2013); Order, Bindon

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 4 of 6
v. Sebelius, No. 13-cv-1207-EGS (D.D.C. Aug. 13, 2013); Order, Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12- cv-02804-DSD-SER (D. Minn. Jan. 25, 2013), ECF No. 53; Order, Korte v. Sebelius, No. 3:12- cv-01072 (S.D. Ill. Dec. 28, 2012), ECF No. 63; Order, Conestoga Wood Specialties, Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 5:12-cv-06744 (E.D. Pa. Jan. 16, 2013), ECF No. 55; Order, Hobby Lobby v. Sebelius, No. 5:12-cv-01000 (W.D. Okla. Dec. 12, 2012), ECF No. 55.
For these reasons, Plaintiffs ask, and Defendants do not oppose, for this Court to stay all proceedings in this case until 30 days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi.
Pursuant to Local Rule 7(m), undersigned counsel consulted with defendants’ counsel, who represented that defendants do not oppose the relief requested in this motion. Furthermore because the motion is unopposed, Plaintiffs have not included a memorandum of law. If the Court requires a memorandum of law on these unopposed issues, Plaintiffs will provide one without delay.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to grant their unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining defendants, until 30 days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi, from enforcing against Plaintiffs, their employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require plaintiffs to provide employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 5 of 6

Plaintiffs further respectfully ask this Court to stay all proceedings in this case until 30 days after the mandate issues from the D.C. Circuit in Gilardi. Counsel for defendants has indicated to undersigned counsel that defendants do not seek a bond.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request that the court grant this motion and enter the proposed order.

Colby M. May (D.C. Bar No. 394340) American Center for Law & Justice 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, D.C. 20002 (202) 546-8890 (202) 546-9309 (fax) cmmay@aclj-dc.org

Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Mark T. Hayden Mark T. Hayden* John B. Nalbandian* Matthew D. Lawless* Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381-2838 (513) 381-0205 (fax) mhayden@taftlaw.com nalbandian@taftlaw.com mlawless@taftlaw.com (* admitted pro hac vice)
Attorneys for Plaintiffs The C.W. Zumbiel Co., Robert W. Zumbiel, and Thomas J. Zumbiel

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15 Filed 11/25/13 Page 6 of 6

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on November 25, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was filed electronically. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s electronic filing system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s system. I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served upon counsel for all parties who has not yet entered an appearance electronically: None.

13915956.1

/s/ Mark T. Hayden Mark T. Hayden (admitted pro hac vice) Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381-2838 (513) 381-0205 (fax) mhayden@taftlaw.com
Attorney for Plaintiffs

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15-1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. D/B/A ZUMBIEL PACKAGING, ET AL,

Plaintiffs, vs.

Civil Action No. 1:13-cv-01611-RBW

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, ET AL.

Defendants. _____________________________________/

PROPOSED ORDER

Upon Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings

and for good cause shown, Plaintiffs’ motion is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS ORDERED that Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are

hereby enjoined until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health

& Human Servs., No 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.), from enforcing against Plaintiffs, their employee

health plans, the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, and/or

their insurers the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide their employees

insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods,

sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive

capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or any

other enforcement actions for noncompliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D,

4980 H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.

13915961.1

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 15-1 Filed 11/25/13 Page 2 of 2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are stayed until thirty (30) days after the mandate issues from the court of appeals in Gilardi v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 13-5069 (D.C. Cir.).
SO ORDERED.

Date: __________________

________________________ REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge

cc: Clerk of the Court All Counsel of Record

13915961.1

 </s> Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 19 Filed 11/03/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

____________________________________

)

THE C.W. ZUMBIEL CO., et al,

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

) Civil Action No. 13-1611 (RBW)

)

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND )

HUMAN SERVICES, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

____________________________________ )

PERMANENT INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT In light of the parties’ consent as represented in their Joint Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Judgment, and the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), it is hereby ORDERED that the defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are permanently enjoined (a) from enforcing
(1) the “June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” defined here to include those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require plaintiff The C.W. Zumbiel Co., d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging (“Zumbiel Co.”), to provide its employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which the plaintiffs object on religious grounds, e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-

1

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 19 Filed 11/03/14 Page 2 of 3
2713(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv); and (2) any penalties, fines, or assessments for noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, including those found in 26 U.S.C. § 4980D and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d; and (b) from taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement against plaintiff Zumbiel Co., its employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or Zumbiel Co.’s health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to Zumbiel Co.’s health plan(s). It is further ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on the plaintiffs’ claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq. It is further ORDERED that all other claims against the defendants are DISMISSED. It is further ORDERED that, pursuant to Local Rule 54.2, the parties are directed to confer and attempt to reach agreement on attorneys’ fees and costs. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear before the Court for a status conference regarding attorneys’ fees and costs at a time and date to be determined by the Clerk. If the parties do not reach resolution of the attorneys’ fees and costs at the status conference, the plaintiffs may file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs within thirty days of that status conference pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54, unless the Court sets forth a different briefing schedule at that status conference. It is further ORDERED that this Injunction and Judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing
2

Case 1:13-cv-01611-RBW Document 19 Filed 11/03/14 Page 3 of 3 herein prevents the plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes. It is further
ORDERED that the parties’ Joint Motion to Continue Stay and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT.
SO ORDERED this 3rd day of November, 2014. REGGIE B. WALTON United States District Judge
3

 </s> Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 1 of 7
CLOSED,STAYED,TYPE−L
U.S. District Court District of Columbia (Washington, DC) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−01611−RBW

C.W. ZUMBIEL CO., et al v. UNITED STATES

Date Filed: 10/22/2013

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES et al Date Terminated: 03/18/2015

Assigned to: Judge Reggie B. Walton

Jury Demand: None

Cause: 05:0706 Judicial Review of Agency Actions

Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other

Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Plaintiff

C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. doing business as ZUMBIEL PACKAGING

represented by James M. Dickerson , Jr. TAFT STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381−2838 Fax: (513) 381−0205 LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B. Nalbandian TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381−2838 Fax: (513) 381−0205 Email: nalbandian@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark T. Hayden TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381−2838 Fax: (513) 381−0205 Email: mhayden@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Lawless TAFT, STETTINIUS & HOLLISTER LLP 425 Walnut Street Suite 1800 Cincinnati, OH 45202 (513) 381−2838 Fax: (513) 381−0205 Email: mlawless@taftlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colby Mims May

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 2 of 7

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE 201 Maryland Avenue NE Washington, DC 20002 (202) 546−8890 Fax: (202) 546−9309 Email: cmmay@aclj−dc.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ROBERT W. ZUMBIEL

represented by James M. Dickerson , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B. Nalbandian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark T. Hayden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Lawless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colby Mims May (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff THOMAS J. ZUMBIEL

represented by James M. Dickerson , Jr. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

John B. Nalbandian (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Mark T. Hayden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Matthew D. Lawless (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Colby Mims May

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 3 of 7
(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant KATHLEEN SEBELIUS
Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
Defendant JACOB J. LEW
Defendant U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Defendant THOMAS E. PEREZ

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 (202) 305−8902 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 10/22/2013
10/22/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0090−3508275) filed by Thomas J Zumbiel, Robert W. Zumbiel, C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summons HHS Summons, # 3 Summons Sebelius Summons, # 4 Summons Treasury Summons, # 5 Summons Lew Summons, # 6 Summons Labor Summons, # 7 Summons Perez Summons, # 8 Summons Holder Summons, # 9 Summons Civil−Process Clerk Summons, # 10 Supplement Corporate Disclosure Statement)(May, Colby) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
2 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− John B. Nalbandian, :Firm− Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, :Address− 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 4 of 7

10/22/2013
10/22/2013
10/22/2013 10/22/2013 10/22/2013
10/23/2013
11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/07/2013

Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Phone No. − 513−381−2838. Fax No. − 813−381−0205 by C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W. Zumbiel, Thomas J Zumbiel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Nalbandian Proposed Order)(May, Colby) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
3 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Mark T. Hayden, :Firm− Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, :Address− 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Phone No. − 513−381−2838. Fax No. − 513−381−0205 by C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W. Zumbiel, Thomas J Zumbiel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Hayden PHV Proposed Order)(May, Colby) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
4 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− Matthew D. Lawless, :Firm− Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, :Address− 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Phone No. − 513−381−2838. Fax No. − 513−381−0205 by C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W. Zumbiel, Thomas J Zumbiel (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Lawless PHV Proposed Order)(May, Colby) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
5 LCvR 7.1 CERTIFICATE OF DISCLOSURE of Corporate Affiliations and Financial Interests by C.W. Zumbiel Co. d/b/a Zumbiel Packaging, Robert W. Zumbiel, Thomas J Zumbiel (md, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
Case Assigned to Judge Reggie B. Walton. (md, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
6 ELECTRONIC SUMMONS ISSUED (8) as to JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (Attachments: # 1 Summons 2nd, # 2 Summons 3rd, # 3 Summons 4th, # 4 Summons 5th, # 5 Summons 6th, # 6 Summons 7th, # 7 Summons 8th, # 8 Notice of Consent, # 9 Consent Form)(md, ) (Entered: 10/22/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 3 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice; granting 4 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Upon consideration of the motions for pro hac vice admission of Mark T. Hayden, Matthew D. Lawless, and John B. Nalbandian and finding compliance with Local Civil Rules 83.2(c) and (d), it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED, and Mark T. Hayden, Esq., Matthew D. Lawless, Esq., and John B. Nalbandian, Esq. shall be admitted pro hac vice in this case. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on October 23, 2013. (lcrbw1, ) (Entered: 10/23/2013)
7 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. THOMAS E. PEREZ served on 10/28/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
8 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. KATHLEEN SEBELIUS served on 10/28/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
9 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES served on 10/28/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
10 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed on United States Attorney General. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney General 10/30/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
11 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed as to the United States Attorney. Date of Service Upon United States Attorney on 10/30/2013. Answer due for ALL FEDERAL DEFENDANTS by 12/29/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
12 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR served on 10/31/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 5 of 7

11/07/2013 11/07/2013 11/25/2013 11/26/2013 11/27/2013
11/27/2013 09/05/2014 10/20/2014 11/03/2014
11/03/2014 12/08/2014
12/08/2014

13 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY served on 10/31/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
14 RETURN OF SERVICE/AFFIDAVIT of Summons and Complaint Executed. JACOB J. LEW served on 10/31/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − returned certified mail green card)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/07/2013)
15 Unopposed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and, Unopposed MOTION to Stay Proceedings by C.W. ZUMBIEL CO., ROBERT W. ZUMBIEL, THOMAS J. ZUMBIEL (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 11/25/2013)
16 NOTICE of Appearance by Michelle Renee Bennett on behalf of All Defendants (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 11/26/2013)
MINUTE ORDER granting 15 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 15 Motion to Stay. Upon consideration of the Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings, in light of the parties' consent, and for good cause shown, it is ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are ENJOINED until thirty days after the mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in Gilardi v. HHS, No. 13−5069 (D.C. Cir.), from pursuing any enforcement action or imposing any penalties provided for in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d against or on the plaintiffs, their employee health plans, the group health insurance coverage provided in connection with such plans, and/or their insurers as a result of the plaintiffs' failure to provide their employees with insurance coverage for "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity," 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 12, 2012). It is further ORDERED that all proceedings in this case are STAYED until thirty days after the mandate issues from the Circuit in Gilardi v. HHS, No. 13−5069 (D.C. Cir.). Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on 11/27/2013. (lcrbw2) (Entered: 11/27/2013)
Case Stayed (mpt, ) (Entered: 12/05/2013)
17 Joint MOTION to Continue Stay and Preliminary Injunction by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/05/2014)
18 Joint MOTION for Permanent Injunction and Judgment by C.W. ZUMBIEL CO. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Injunction and Judgment)(Hayden, Mark) (Entered: 10/20/2014)
19 ORDER denying as moot 17 Motion to Continue; granting 18 Motion for Permanent Injunction. Per the attached order, the parties' Joint Motion for Entry of Permanent Injunction and Judgment is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that the parties' Joint Motion to Continue Stay and Preliminary Injunction is DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall appear for a status conference at a time and date to be determined by the Clerk. See attached image for details. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on November 3, 2014. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference set for 12/17/2014 10:15 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (mpt, ) (Entered: 11/03/2014)
20 MOTION for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice :Attorney Name− James M. Dickerson, Jr., :Firm− Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, :Address− 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202. Phone No. − (513) 381−2838. Fax No. − (513) 381−0205 Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0090−3927935. Fee Status: Fee Paid. by C.W. ZUMBIEL CO., ROBERT W. ZUMBIEL, THOMAS J. ZUMBIEL (May, Colby) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
21 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs and Motion to Reschedule Dec. 17 Status Conference by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/08/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 6 of 7

12/08/2014
12/09/2014
12/10/2014 01/12/2015 01/13/2015
01/14/2015 02/20/2015 02/23/2015
02/24/2015 03/17/2015 03/17/2015

MINUTE ORDER granting 20 Motion for Leave to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Having considered the plaintiffs' Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice, and it appearing to the Court that the attorney referenced therein meets the requirements for pro hac vice admission under this Court's rules, it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that James M. Dickerson Jr., of the law firm Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP, 425 Walnut Street, Suite 1800, Cincinnati, Ohio 45202, is ADMITTED to practice before the Court pro hac vice. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on December 8, 2014. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 12/08/2014)
MINUTE ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time. In light of the parties' consent, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to continue the status conference in this matter scheduled for December 17, 2014, at 10:15 a.m., and extend the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. The status conference is CONTINUED to a time and date to be determined by the Clerk, and the time permitted for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is extended until thirty days after the date of that status conference. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on December 9, 2014. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 12/09/2014)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference reset for 1/22/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (mpt, ) (Entered: 12/10/2014)
22 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs and Motion to Reschedule Jan. 22 Status Conference by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 01/12/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 22 Motion for Extension of Time. In light of the parties' consent, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to continue the status conference in this matter scheduled for January 22, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., and extend the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. The status conference is CONTINUED to a time and date to be determined by the Clerk, and the time permitted for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is extended until thirty days after the date of that status conference. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on January 13, 2015. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 01/13/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference reset for 2/25/2015 09:00 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (mpt, ) (Entered: 01/14/2015)
23 Joint MOTION for Extension of Time to File Motion for Attorneys Fees and Costs and Motion to Reschedule Feb. 25 Status Conference by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/20/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 23 Motion for Extension of Time. In light of the parties' consent, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that the Joint Motion to continue the status conference in this matter scheduled for February 25, 2015, at 9:00 a.m., and extend the deadline for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is GRANTED. The status conference is CONTINUED to a time and date to be determined by the Clerk, and the time permitted for the plaintiffs to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs is extended until thirty days after the date of that status conference. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on February 23, 2015. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 02/23/2015)
Set/Reset Hearings: Status Conference reset for 4/7/2015 09:15 AM in Courtroom 16 before Judge Reggie B. Walton. (mpt, ) (Entered: 02/24/2015)
24 Joint MOTION to Vacate April 7, 2015 Status Conference by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 03/17/2015)
MINUTE ORDER granting 24 Motion to Vacate. In light of the representations set forth in the parties' Joint Motion to Vacate Status Conference 24 , it is hereby ORDERED that the motion is GRANTED, and the status conference scheduled for

Case: 1:13-cv-1611 As of: 11/05/2017 11:50 PM EST 7 of 7
April 7, 2015, is VACATED. It is further ORDERED that this case is CLOSED. Signed by Judge Reggie B. Walton on March 17, 2015. (lcrbw1) (Entered: 03/17/2015)


[CONTENT] one | Obama | 2012 Health and Human Services | HHS |||  ||| the Contraception Insurance Mandate ||| October 22, 2013 | the United States | the Religious Freedom Restoration Act | the First Amendment | the Administrative Procedure Act | the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ||| American Center for Law and Justice | the Affordable Care Act | ACA |||  ||| November 27, 2013 | United States District Court | Reggie B. Walton ||| Court | ACA | 30 days | the United States Court of Appeals | the D.C. Circuit | U.S. Department of Health and Human Services ||| November 1, 2013 | the U.S. Court of Appeals | the D.C. Circuit | ACA | Constitution ||| the District Court's ||| November 6, 2013 ||| The Supreme Court | January 30, 2014 ||| June 30, 2014 | the Supreme Court | Burwell | Hobby Lobby Stores Inc. | 134 | 2014 | Clearinghouse ||| Court | the Religious Freedom Restoration Act | RFRA ||| Hobby | October 24, 2014 | the District Court |||  |||  ||| November 3, 2014 ||| the “Contraceptive Coverage Requirement ||| the "Contraception Coverage Requirement |||  ||| March 17, 2015 |||  [SUMMARY] This is one of many lawsuits brought challenging the Obama administration's 2012 Health and Human Services (HHS) mandate requiring employers to pay for employees' contraception and abortifacients via medical insurance coverage. Many religious hospitals, charities, universities, and other enterprises owned or controlled by religious organizations or individuals who opposed contraception on doctrinal grounds, argued the mandate violated their religious beliefs. For a full list of these cases please see our collection of the Contraception Insurance Mandate cases <a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/results.php?searchSpecialCollection=12">here</a>.

On October 22, 2013, a for-profit company filed a lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of D.C. under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment, and the Administrative Procedure Act against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The plaintiff, represented in part by the public interest firm American Center for Law and Justice, asked the court for an exception to the Affordable Care Act (ACA) mandate requiring employers to provide health insurance coverage of contraception. Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that providing insurance coverage of contraception would violate the deeply held religious beliefs of the corporation's owners.

On November 27, 2013, United States District Court (Judge Reggie B. Walton) granted the plaintiff's unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and stayed the case. The Court ordered the defendant not to enforce the ACA insurance mandate regarding contraception against the plaintiff until 30 days after the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in <a href="http://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12714&">Gilardi v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services </a>, which involved similar legal issues and the same defendant as this case.  

On November 1, 2013, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled in <i>Gilardi</i> that the ACA's contraception insurance mandate likely violated the free exercise clause of the Constitution. It therefore reversed the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction against the defendant in that case. On November 6, 2013, a petition for certiorari was filed in the <i>Gilardi</i> case. The Supreme Court docketed the case on January 30, 2014. 

On June 30, 2014, the Supreme Court released its decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores Inc., 134 S. Ct.2751 (2014) (<a href="https://www.clearinghouse.net/detail.php?id=12661">FA-OK-0001</a> in this Clearinghouse), a case with substantially similar facts. There, the Court held that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) permits for-profit corporations that are closely held (e.g., owned by a family or family trust) to refuse, on religious grounds, to pay for legally mandated coverage of certain contraceptive drugs and devices in their employees’ health insurance plans. 

In light of the <i>Hobby Lobby</i> decision, on October 24, 2014, the parties submitted a joint motion to the District Court. They agreed that judgment should be entered in favor of plaintiff on their Religious Freedom Restoration Act claim, that a permanent injunction should be entered, and that all other claims against the defendant should be dismissed. They also agreed that the issue of plaintiff's attorneys’ fees and costs would be resolved after the judgement was entered.

The court adopted the parties' proposed permanent injunction on November 3, 2014. The defendant was enjoined from enforcing the “Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” that required the plaintiff to provide its employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which the plaintiff objected on religious grounds. It also barred defendant from taking any actions against plaintiff for noncompliance with the "Contraception Coverage Requirement." The only issue left open was attorneys' fees.

The parties reached an undisclosed agreement regarding attorneys' fees on March 17, 2015, and asked the court to close the case. The case is now closed. 