CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 1 of 27

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

HASTINGS AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, HASTINGS CHRYSLER CENTER, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOUGLAS W. ERICKSON, a Minnesota resident,

Case No.: _____________

Plaintiffs, vs.

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND
INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; THOMAS PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

TRIAL BY JURY DEMANDED

Defendants.

_____________________________

Plaintiffs Douglas W. Erickson, Hastings Automotive, Inc., and Hastings Chrysler

Center, Inc. (collectively “Plaintiffs”), by and through their counsel, and for their

Complaint against Defendants, state and allege as follows:

INTRODUCTION

1. In this action, Plaintiffs challenge the mandate from the Department of

Health and Human Services (“HHS”) under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care

1

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 2 of 27
Act (“ACA”) requiring employers to provide coverage in a group health plan for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity (the “Mandate”).
2. Plaintiffs base their challenge on their sincerely held religious belief that life begins at conception and certain of the FDA-approved contraceptive methods, such as emergency contraceptives Plan B and ella, as well as certain intrauterine devices (“IUDs”), can destroy a human embryo.
3. Plaintiffs believe that it is immoral and sinful for them to provide a group health plan that includes coverage for such contraceptive methods.
4. Plaintiffs seek a preliminary and permanent injunction enjoining the challenged mandate and a declaration that the mandate violates federal constitutional and statutory law. The mandate is unconstitutional on its face and as applied because it violates Plaintiffs’ rights to the free exercise of religion and free speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, violates the establishment of religion prohibition of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, violates equal protection and due process provisions of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
THE PARTIES 5. Plaintiffs Hastings Automotive, Inc. and Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. (the “Dealerships”) are privately owned automotive dealerships located in Hastings, Minnesota. The Dealerships share common ownership sufficient to establish a
2

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 3 of 27
controlled-group for purposes of application of the Affordable Care Act. Between them, the Dealerships employ approximately sixty (60) full-time employees.
6. Plaintiff Erickson is an individual and a citizen of the State of Minnesota and the United States. Erickson is the President and majority owner of both Dealerships. Erickson is a devout Christian and applies his faith to every area of his life, including his operation of the Dealerships. The other shareholder/owners of the Dealerships, a group of six (6) individuals (including Erickson), share Erickson’s sincerely-held Christian faith and likewise share Erickson’s commitment to expressing Christian faith through operation of the Dealerships.
7. As the President and majority shareholder of the Dealerships, Plaintiff Erickson establishes and approves the policies governing personnel and operational matters, and makes the executive decisions governing the operation of the Dealerships, specifically including decisions regarding the health care coverage provided by the Dealerships to employees.
8. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is an agency of the United States Government and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
9. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of HHS. As Secretary, she is responsible for the operation and management of HHS. She is sued in her official capacity only.
3

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 4 of 27
10. Defendant United States Department of Labor (“DOL”) is an agency of the United States government and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
11. Defendant Thomas Perez is the Secretary of DOL. As Secretary, he is responsible for the operation and management of DOL. He is sued in his official capacity only.
12. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States Government and is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
13. Defendant Jacob Lew is the Secretary of the Treasury. As Secretary, he is responsible for the operation and management of the Treasury. He is sued in his official capacity only.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 14. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1361. This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1. This Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 15. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the Plaintiffs reside and do business within this district.
4

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 5 of 27
FACTUAL BACKGROUND A. Plaintiffs’ History, Religious Beliefs, and Practices Related to Insurance for
Abortion. 16. Hastings Automotive, Inc., which is known as Hastings Ford, has been serving the Hastings, Minnesota area for decades. Erickson entered the car business immediately out of college when he went to work for Ford Motor Company at their Twin Cities office. As he acquired more and more experience, Erickson was soon brought into the business at a large metro-area dealership. 17. In 1989, Erickson purchased a sixteen percent (16%) share in the Hastings Ford dealership. By 1992, he owned one-hundred percent (100%) of the business. In 1998, he opened Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. as the 90% shareholder and became the sole shareholder in 2004. 18. Through the years, Erickson has brought other partners into the business. Each of them has a similar mindset on matters of faith and business. Hastings Automotive, Inc. (Hastings Ford) is controlled by a group of four (4) men: Doug Erickson (60%), Joe Linder (30%), Bruce Spinks (5%), and Dan Plank (5%). Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. is controlled by a group of four men: Doug Erickson (55%), Joe Linder (20%), Bart Huppert (20%), and Eric Mech (5%). 19. Erickson grew up attending Lutheran churches, but points to a period in the mid-1990’s when he became a born-again Christian. Because of his wife’s involvement in Bible Study Fellowship, a world-wide interdenominational Bible Study organization, Erickson was challenged to study the Bible more closely as well. He joined a men’s
5

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 6 of 27
Bible study that provided him more instruction about his faith and what he believed as taught in Scripture. As a result, through his study of the Bible and applying the lessons he learned from it to his life, Erickson saw his faith grow and saw changes in many areas of his life, such as improvements in his roles as a father and husband.
20. At that time, Erickson considered selling the Dealerships as the businesses were struggling and Erickson was struggling to maintain them. He decided instead to surrender the Dealerships to Christ, and dedicated himself to integrating faith and work. Erickson characterizes the work he does through the Dealerships as “marketplace ministry,” by which he seeks to serve Christ first and foremost and show the light of Christ to those with whom he comes in contact, such as customers and employees. Since Erickson dedicated the Dealerships to Christ, Plaintiffs have seen a marked improvement in customer satisfaction, employee engagement, and business performance.
21. The operation of the Dealerships is a means by which Erickson and the other owners express their sincerely held religious beliefs. Indeed, the Dealerships themselves share these sincerely held religious beliefs.
22. Erickson’s personal transformation is reflected in what became the corporate vision for the Dealerships. That vision was built upon the principles of Erickson’s faith, including the provision that the company would, “Demonstrate the heart of a servant.”
23. For Plaintiffs, servant leadership is best modeled by Jesus Christ. That is why Plaintiffs offer the opportunity to, but do not require, all the Dealerships’ employees to participate in a formal leadership program that explains the principles of servant
6

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 7 of 27
leadership. More than 30% of all employees from various departments of the business have chosen to complete this leadership training. The program refers to Jesus as the model and utilizes the Bible as part of the instruction provided to participants.
24. As part of Plaintiffs’ vision to integrate faith and work, Plaintiffs employ an ordained pastor who is available to provide pastoral services to employees. The pastor is associated with the Evangelical Free Church of America and is known as, “Pastor of the Stores.”
25. For the past five or six years, Plaintiffs have had regular, voluntary prayer gatherings on the first Friday of every month. Though participation in the gatherings is optional, several of Plaintiffs’ employees choose to participate.
26. Plaintiffs choose their marketing plans very carefully and direct their advertising dollars to advertising venues that share their religious convictions. For instance, a substantial amount of advertising conducted by the Plaintiffs is done over the local Christian radio station, KTIS, in the form of exclusive on-air sponsorships.
27. Plaintiffs support various Christian ministries, including Young Life, a nondenominational Christian ministry that reaches out to adolescents. For the past four or five (4-5) years, the Dealerships have invested more than $10,000 of their profits in Young Life. For more than seven (7) years, Plaintiffs have hosted fundraisers at the Dealerships for Young Life and have sponsored one of Young Life’s fundraising golf tournaments.
28. Plaintiffs make regular financial donations to Total Life Care Centers in Hastings, Minnesota, a non-profit, pro-life organization with multiple pregnancy resource
7

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 8 of 27
centers throughout Minnesota and Wisconsin. Total Life Care Centers provide care for women and their families who are experiencing unplanned pregnancies, helping them choose life for their babies rather than abortion. In addition, the Plaintiffs support the work of Total Life Care Centers as they help young women and their families manage their lives and succeed in their roles as parents. The Dealerships host fundraising events at the Dealerships to assist the center located in Hastings, Minnesota. Plaintiffs, personally and corporately, have supported Total Life Care Centers for the past six or seven (6 or 7) years and consider it a critical exercise of their sincerely-held Christian beliefs, specifically those beliefs that instruct Plaintiffs on the sanctity of human life.
29. As part of their Christian faith, Plaintiffs believe that life begins at conception, and it is therefore a grave moral wrong to destroy a human embryo.
30. Consequently, Plaintiffs believe that the use of what are labeled contraceptive, but have an abortifacient effect, is immoral and sinful because they destroy a human life by chemically inducing an abortion.
31. In particular, Plaintiffs believe that use of emergency contraceptives, such as Plan B and ella, and certain intrauterine devices (“IUDs”), for which coverage is required by the Mandate, is immoral and sinful because these products are designed to destroy a human life shortly after that life has been conceived.
32. Plaintiffs believe that it is immoral and sinful for them to pay for, provide access to, or otherwise support the use of these products through their coverage in the Dealerships’ group health plan, as the Mandate requires.
8

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 9 of 27
33. Plaintiffs believe that it is immoral and sinful to counsel a woman that the use of emergency contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and certain IUDs is a viable birthcontrol option.
34. Plaintiffs believe that it is immoral and sinful for them to pay for, provide access to, or otherwise support counseling that advises women that the use of emergency contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and certain IUDs is a viable birth-control option.
35. Erickson believes that his role as President and majority shareholder of the Dealerships is that of a steward of a business given to him by God and that his employees are God’s children who are entrusted to his care. He regards it as his religious duty to operate the Dealerships in conformity with his religious beliefs.
36. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have provided health insurance to their employees since 1989. Plaintiffs have provided health insurance to their employees through Preferred One since 2012.
37. With the passage of the Affordable Care Act, Plaintiffs sought to clarify and confirm the scope of contraception coverage provided to employees by their health insurance plan. Plaintiffs had always excluded abortion coverage from their insurance plans and believed their insurer provided a plan consistent with their moral beliefs. When the Affordable Care Act required the provision of contraceptives, Plaintiffs reexamined their coverage to determine precisely what was covered. It took several months for the insurer to confirm that, while their plan previously had excluded abortion services, it also covered all FDA-approved contraceptives. After several months of discussion between Plaintiffs and its insurer, it was determined that, because of the
9

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 10 of 27
Affordable Care Act, all FDA-approved contraceptives – including abortifacient drugs, such as Plan B, ella, and certain IUD’s – were required to be covered by Plaintiffs in violation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
38. The Mandate applied to Plaintiffs beginning July 1, 2013, because the Dealerships have more than fifty (50) full-time employees, do not qualify as a religious employer and are not entitled to the grandfather exemption.
39. Because of the Mandate, Plaintiffs’ current health insurance plan provides coverage for contraceptives and abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling in violation of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs. At renewal of its plan year on July 1, 2013, the Dealerships were forced to comply with the Mandate in violation of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
B. The Affordable Care Act and the Mandate. 40. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-
148, 124 Stat. 119, requires group health plans to provide women with “preventative care and screenings” without cost sharing by the patient. See U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4).
41. The ACA provides: A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for . . . (4) with respect to women, such additional preventative care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
Id.
10

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 11 of 27
42. The Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”) asked the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”), an arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to recommend which drugs, procedures, and services should be covered as preventative care for women.
43. IOM’s report recommended, among other things, that the guidelines require coverage for “the full range of Food and Drug Administration [FDA]-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.” Institute for Medicine, Clinical Preventive Services for Women: Closing the Gaps (2011), available at http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/INSTITUTE%20OF%20MEDICINEPREVENTIVE%20SERVICES%20REPORT.pdf.
44. HRSA adopted the IOM’s recommendation. See Health Resources and Services Administration, Women’s Preventative Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines, http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines (last visited Jan. 7, 2014) (HRSA Guidelines).
45. Defendants issued a final rule on February 15, 2012 mandating coverage under the ACA for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity (the “Mandate”). See 77 Fed. Reg. 8725.
46. The FDA has approved twenty (20) contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures, including IUD’s and emergency contraceptives commonly known as Plan B and ella. FDA Office of Women’s Health, Birth Control Guide, available at
11

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 12 of 27
http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ UCM356451.pdf.
47. These so-called emergency contraceptives and certain IUDs can, and often do, prevent the implantation of a human embryo and, thereby, can cause the unnatural, premature death of a developing human. In other words, Plaintiffs believe that certain drugs and devices that the government has labeled as a “contraceptive” do not prevent conception; rather, it is Plaintiffs’ religious belief that such drugs and devices act to induce a chemical abortion of a human life. Thus, “emergency contraceptives,” to the Plaintiffs, is a political misnomer of the government’s creation. Rather than a means to prevent the conception of a human life, Plaintiffs sincerely believe that Plan B, ella, and certain IUDs are abortifacients that immorally destroy a conceived human life.
48. The ACA requires employers with more than fifty full-time employees to provide health insurance coverage that complies with the ACA and the Mandate or pay substantial fines and penalties. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980H.
49. For example, an employer who offers a health plan but does not comply with a portion of the ACA or the Mandate shall be taxed, “$100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to each individual to whom such failure relates.” 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(b)(1).
50. If an employer with more than fifty full-time employees fails to offer any health plan, the employer will be fined $2,000 per year per employee. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(a).
12

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 13 of 27
51. The requirement to offer a group health plan and the accompanying fine for failure to do so does not apply to employers with fewer than fifty (50) employees. 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2)(A).
52. Certain provisions of the ACA do not apply to members of certain religious groups. See, e.g., 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i) (stating that the individual mandate does not apply to members of a “recognized religious sect or division” that conscientiously objects to acceptance of public or private insurance funds); § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(ii) (stating that the individual mandate does not apply to members of a “health care sharing ministry” that meets certain criteria).
53. The Mandate does not apply to preexisting health plans that are “grandfathered.” 76 Fed. Reg. 46623 & n.4.
54. The ACA creates a system of individualized exemptions because, under the ACA’s authorization, the federal government has granted discretionary compliance waivers to a variety of for-profit businesses, unions, and other organizations for purely secular or political reasons.
55. To date, HHS has granted over 1,000 individualized waiver requests to employers and insurance plans excusing them from compliance with the ACA. See The Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight, Annual Limits Policy: Protecting Consumers, Maintaining Options, and Building a Bridge to 2014, http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Files/approved_applications_for_waiver.html (last visited January 17, 2014).
56. The Mandate does not apply to certain religious entities and individuals. 13

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 14 of 27
57. The HRSA may establish exemptions for “religious employers.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(A). HHS regulations define “religious employer” as “an organization that meets all of the following criteria: (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization. (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 60343(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(B).
58. However, amended guidelines effective August 1, 2013, define, “religious employer” as, “an employer that is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and is referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.” 78 Fed. Reg. 39874 (July 2, 2013). The referenced section of the Internal Revenue Code refers to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and the “exclusively religious activities of any religious order.” 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii).
59. In addition, Defendants have provided an accommodation for certain nonexempt religious organizations. See 78 Fed. Reg. 39874.
60. An organization is eligible for the accommodation if it “(1) [o]pposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered . . . on account of religious objections; (2) is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; (3) holds itself out as a religious organization; and (4) self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria.” Id.
14

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 15 of 27
61. No exemption or accommodation exists for for-profit organizations such as the Dealerships, even if they object to the Mandate based on sincerely held religious beliefs.
62. The Mandate is not generally applicable because there are numerous exemptions from its rules and applicability.
63. The Mandate is not neutral because many organizations and individuals, both secular and religious, are exempt from complying with the provisions of the ACA, including the Mandate, or have received individual compliance waivers exempting them from provisions of the ACA, including the Mandate.
64. If Plaintiffs provided a group health plan that did not include coverage required by the Mandate, they would be subject to a tax of “$100 for each day in the noncompliance period with respect to each individual to whom such failure relates.” 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(b)(1).
65. If Plaintiffs provided no group health plan, they would be fined $2,000 per year per employee.
66. The Mandate illegally and unconstitutionally forces Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs concerning the sanctity of human life, contraception, and abortifacient drugs to avoid incurring substantial taxes, fines, and penalties. Compliance with the mandate would levy a substantial burden upon the exercise of religion by the Plaintiffs, causing irreparable harm and forcing them to abandon or act in derogation of their religious beliefs by providing insurance coverage for abortifacient
15

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 16 of 27
drugs and devices and counseling, education, and dissemination of information concerning same.
CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb 67. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 66, as though fully set forth herein. 68. Plaintiffs are persons exercising religion under, and within the meaning of, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42, U.S.C. § 2000bb (“RFRA”). 69. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing, providing coverage for, or otherwise supporting the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan. 70. When Plaintiffs adhere to Christian Biblical teachings with regard to contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling, they exercise religion within the meaning of the RFRA. 71. The Mandate coerces Plaintiffs to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring them to purchase, provide coverage for, or otherwise support the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan. 72. By not complying, the Mandate inflicts substantial taxes, fines, and penalties on Plaintiffs for exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs.
16

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 17 of 27
73. The Mandate imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion.
74. The Defendants’ exemption of certain, and many, groups from the requirements of the Mandate together with their failure to accommodate Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs is highly selective, arbitrary, and discriminatory.
75. The Mandate furthers no compelling government interest. 76. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any alleged compelling government interest. 77. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering any alleged compelling government interest. 78. The Mandate violates RFRA. 79. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT II Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 80. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 79, as though fully set forth herein. 81. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing, providing coverage for, or otherwise supporting the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan.
17

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 18 of 27
82. When Plaintiffs adhere to Christian Biblical teachings with regard to contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling, they exercise religion within the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
83. The Mandate is not neutral and is not generally applicable. 84. Defendants have created categorical and individualized exemptions to the Mandate. 85. The Mandate furthers no compelling government interest. 86. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering any alleged government interest, nor is it narrowly tailored to any alleged government interest. 87. The Mandate coerces Plaintiffs to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. 88. Compliance with the Mandate imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of their religion by forcing Plaintiffs to purchase, provide coverage for, or otherwise support the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. 89. Noncompliance with the Mandate imposes substantial taxes, fines, and penalties on Plaintiffs for exercising their religious beliefs. 90. The Mandate is designed to apply to some religious individuals but not to others, resulting in discrimination among religions. 91. The Mandate permits HRSA unlimited discretion to decide to exempt some, all, or no organizations meeting the definition of “religious employers.”
18

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 19 of 27
92. Defendants have provided exemptions to the Mandate for some religious individuals but not others based on characteristics of their beliefs and the manner in which they exercise them.
93. Defendants designed the Mandate and the religious exemption in a way that makes it impossible for Plaintiffs to comply with their religious beliefs.
94. Defendants created both the Mandate and the religious exemption with the purpose and intent to suppress Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
95. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
96. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT III Violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 97. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 96, as though fully set forth herein. 98. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing, providing coverage for, or otherwise supporting the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan. 99. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of any religion as well as excessive government entanglement with religion.
19

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 20 of 27
100. The Establishment Clause requires that the government remain neutral in all matters of religion.
101. The Mandate requires Defendants to examine Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs to determine whether they are sufficiently religious to qualify for the exemption or whether they must comply with the Mandate.
102. This examination requires continuous surveillance of Plaintiffs’ religious exercise, causing an impermissible degree of entanglement with religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.
103. The Mandate discriminates between religions and denominations and exhibits hostility to religious beliefs.
104. The Mandate adopts a particular view of what is acceptable moral complicity in provision of contraceptive and abortifacient-drug coverage and imposes it upon all religious individuals who must either conform to the mandate’s view or suffer penalties.
105. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
106. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
20

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 21 of 27
COUNT IV Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Compelled Speech 107. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 106, as though fully set forth herein. 108. A business’s conduct and speech relating to the provision of an employee health plan is “speech” protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. 109. Expenditures of money are a form of protected speech. 110. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing, providing coverage for, or otherwise supporting the use of certain contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling in their employee group health plan. 111. The Mandate’s requirement that all group health plans provide coverage for patient education and counseling in relation to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs forces Plaintiffs to subsidize speech and expressive conduct that is directly contrary to Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. 112. The Mandate furthers no compelling government interest. 113. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any alleged compelling government interest, nor is it the least restrictive means of furthering any alleged government interest. 114. As a result of the aforementioned violations of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Mandate is facially invalid.
21

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 22 of 27
115. As a result of the aforementioned violations of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment, the Mandate is invalid as applied.
116. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
117. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT V Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution – Expressive Association 118. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 117, as though fully set forth herein. 119. The Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects Plaintiffs’ right to expressive association. 120. Plaintiffs profess and support in their community the message and belief that life begins at conception and that the use of so-called emergency contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, and certain IUDs violate their sincerely held religious beliefs. 121. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to provide, subsidize, fund, or participate in the provision or subsidization of the very activities that Plaintiffs profess to be violations of their religious beliefs. 122. The Mandate would compel Plaintiffs to provide, subsidize, fund, or participate in the provision or subsidization of so-called emergency contraceptives, abortifacient drugs, certain IUDs, and related education and counseling.
22

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 23 of 27
123. Defendants’ actions thus violate Plaintiffs’ rights to expressive association under the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
124. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
COUNT VI Violation of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution 125. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference, paragraphs 1 through 124, as though fully set forth herein. 126. The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that the government shall not deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law and implicitly ensures equal protection of the law to all people. 127. Under the Fifth Amendment, the government must remain neutral in matters of religion and religious organization. 128. The Mandate discriminates between religions and denominations and exhibits hostility to religious beliefs. 129. The Mandate requires Defendants to examine Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs to determine whether they are sufficiently religious to qualify for the exemption or whether they must comply with the Mandate. 130. For-profit companies and their owners, no matter how religious, are not included in the exemption to the ACA or the Mandate. 131. While a church and its pastor are exempt from the Mandate, a lay person who owns a for-profit company and his or her company are not exempt, despite the fact
23

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 24 of 27
that they hold the same religious beliefs and objections to the Mandate as the church and its pastor.
132. Thus, the exemption unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of some religious persons and entities and against others.
133. The government’s discrimination between different religious individuals and entities is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process, equal protection, and neutrality requirements. The Mandate does not treat each similarly situated religious objector equally under the law. The government is unconstitutionally favoring religious objectors who are clergy or entities organized as a church over those who are lay people who own for-profit businesses or entities organized as a for-profit business.
134. As a result of the aforementioned violations under the Fifth Amendment, the Mandate is facially invalid.
135. As a result of the aforementioned violations under the Fifth Amendment, the Mandate is invalid as applied.
136. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights to due process and equal protection under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
137. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 1. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request a jury trial on the claims presented herein and request that the Court:
24

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 25 of 27
2. Declare that the Mandate and its application to Plaintiffs violate the Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
3. Declare that the Mandate and its application to Plaintiffs violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
4. Declare that the Mandate and its application to Plaintiffs violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
5. Declare that the Mandate and its application to Plaintiffs violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
6. Declare that the Mandate and its application to Plaintiffs violate the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution;
7. Issue both preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants from applying the Mandate to and enforcing the Mandate against Plaintiffs;
8. Declare that an insurance issuer that offers a group health plan to Plaintiffs that excludes the coverage required by the Mandate does not violate the ACA or the Mandate;
9. Award Plaintiffs’ costs and reasonable attorney fees; 10. Award such other relief as the Court deems just.
25

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 26 of 27

January 29, 2014

LIBERTY INSTITUTE

By: /s/ Kathryn M. Nash Kathryn M. Nash (MN Bar No. 0312496) Meghann F. Kantke (MN Bar No. 0391270) Pamela Kovacs (MN Bar No. 0394817) Volunteer Attorneys, Liberty Institute 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 Telephone: (612) 632-3000 Facsimile: (612) 632-4444 kathryn.m.nash@gmail.com mekantke@gmail.com pamelajkovacs@yahoo.com

Jeff Mateer, (TX Bar No.: 13185320) General Counsel, Liberty Institute Jeremiah G. Dys (W. Va Bar No.: 9998) Senior Counsel, Liberty Institute 2001 Plano Parkway, Suite 1600 Plano, TX 75075 jmateer@libertyinstitute.org jdys@libertyinstitute.org
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

26

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 1 Filed 01/29/14 Page 27 of 27

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 34 Filed 05/28/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

HASTINGS AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, HASTINGS CHRYSLER CENTER, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOUGLAS W. ERICKSON, a Minnesota resident,

Civil No.: 14-265 (PAM-JJG)

Plaintiffs,

vs.

ORDER

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Service; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; THOMAS PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants.

This M atter i s bef ore the Cou rt on Plai ntiffs’ Renewe d M otion f or Preli minary Injunction. Defendants do not oppose the Motion. Accordingly, based on the Motion, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. Plaintiffs’ Renewed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 28) is GRANTED; and
2. Defendants are preli minarily enjoined, until t hirty da ys after the mandate issues from the Supreme Court of the United States in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores,

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 34 Filed 05/28/14 Page 2 of 2
Inc., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Sp ecialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356, from enforcing the co ntraceptive coverage requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) (the “Mandate”) and i ts i mplementing regula tions, publish ed at 76 F ed. Reg. 4 6621-46626 (August 3, 2011) ( interim final rules) and 7 7 Fed. Reg. 8725-8730 (Feb. 15, 2 012) (final rules), against Plaintiffs, and against any health insurance issuer when offering any group health insura nce cove rage to Plaintif fs without coverage f or “[ a]ll Food and Dr ug Administration appr oved contracepti ve methods, steri lization proc edures, and pat ient education a nd cou nseling f or all wo men with repro ductive capacity.” See HRSA, Women’s P reventive Services: Re quired He alth P lan Co verage Gu idelines, available a t http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/ (August 1, 2011).

Dated: May 28, 2014

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 38 Filed 12/11/14 Page 1 of 3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc., Douglas W. Erickson, and Hastings Automotive, Inc.,

Case No. 14-cv-265 (PAM/HB)

Plaintiffs,

v.

ORDER

Kathleen Sebelius, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; United States Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; United States Department of Labor; Jacob Lew, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; and United States Department of Treasury,

Defendants. ___________________________________________________________

This matter is bef ore t he Court on the parties’ Stipulat ion f or Entr y of Judg ment

(Docket No. 37). I n light of the S upreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. H obby Lobby

Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are enjoined

a. from enforcing

i. the “June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,”

defined here to include those provisio ns o f federal law in

existence on June 30, 2 014, when the Supre me Court decided

Hobby Lobb y, that r equire plaintif f Hastings Auto motive,

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 38 Filed 12/11/14 Page 2 of 3

Inc. to provide its e mployees with health coverage f or

contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related

patient education and counseling to whic h plaintiffs object on

religious gro unds, e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9 815-2713(a)(1)(iv);

29 C.F.R. §

2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C

.F.R.

§ 147.130(a)(1)(iv); and

ii. any pe nalties, f ines, o r assess ments f or non compliance wi th

the June 30, 2 014 Contraceptive Covera ge Require ment,

including those f ound 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 Cont raceptive Covera ge Re quirement agai nst pla intiff

Hastings Au tomotive, Inc., its e mployee hea lth plan(s), the gr oup

health co verage provi ded in connec tion with such plan( s), a nd/or

Hastings Aut omotive, Inc.’s health insura nce issuers and/or third -

party ad ministrators with respect to Has tings Aut omotive, I nc.’s

health plan(s);

2. Judgment is ent ered in f avor of plaintif fs and agai nst def endants on

plaintiffs’ claim un der the Rel igious F reedom Restoration Ac t, 42 U.S .C.

§§ 2000bb et seq.;

2

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-HB Document 38 Filed 12/11/14 Page 3 of 3

3. Any petition o r motion b y pl aintiffs for attorne ys’ f ees or costs s hall be submitted on or before 45 days (or the next business day if that day falls on a weekend or court holiday) from the date this judgment is issued; and
4. This injunction and judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or reg ulation t hat are enacted o r pro mulgated af ter this da te, and nothing herein prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Dated: December 10, 2014

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

3

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-JJG Document 27 Filed 03/19/14 Page 1 of 2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

HASTINGS AUTOMOTIVE, INC., a Minnesota corporation, HASTINGS CHRYSLER CENTER, INC., a Minnesota corporation; and DOUGLAS W. ERICKSON, a Minnesota resident,

Case No.: 0:14-cv-00265 PAM-JJG

Plaintiffs, vs.

ORDER

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Service; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; THOMAS PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; and UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay. (Docket No. 21.) Defendants do not oppose the Motion and agree not to enforce statutory and regulatory provisions at issue until 30 days following the United States Supreme Court’s mandate in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356. Because Defendants agree not to take action in the interim, the Court sees no need to enter an injunction. The

CASE 0:14-cv-00265-PAM-JJG Document 27 Filed 03/19/14 Page 2 of 2

Court will order a stay, however, pending the outcome of the above-cited cases. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s Motion for a
Preliminary Injunction and Stay (Docket No. 21) is DENIED in part and GRANTED in part as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED without prejudice as moot;
2. Plaintiff’s Motion for Stay is GRANTED; and 3. All proceedings in this case are stayed until the Supreme Court issues a
ruling in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356.

Date: March 19, 2014

s/ Paul A. Magnuson
The Honorable Paul A. Magnuson United States District Court Judge

2

 
 CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 1 of 6
CLOSED,CV
U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:14−cv−00265−PAM−HB

Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. et al v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: Senior Judge Paul A. Magnuson Referred to: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer Cause: 28:2201 Injunction
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/29/2014 Date Terminated: 12/12/2014 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. a Minnesota corporation

represented by Jeffrey C Mateer Liberty Institute 2001 Plano Parkway Ste 1600 Plano, TX 75075 972−941−4444 Email: jmateer@libertyinstitute.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremiah G Dys Liberty Institute 2001 Plano Parkway Ste 1600 Plano, TX 75075 972−941−4444 Email: jdys@libertyinstitute.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn M Nash Volunteer Attorneys, Liberty Institute 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−632−3273 Fax: 612−632−4273 Email: kathryn.m.nash@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meghann F Kantke Volunteer Attorneys, Liberty Institute 80 S 8th St Ste 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−632−3414 Fax: 612−632−4414 Email: mekantke@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Douglas W. Erickson a Minnesota resident

represented by Jeffrey C Mateer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremiah G Dys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 2 of 6

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn M Nash Volunteer Attorneys, Liberty Institute 80 South Eighth Street, Suite 500 Minneapolis, MN 55402 (612) 632−3000 Fax: (612) 632−4444 Email: kathryn.m.nash@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meghann F Kantke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Hastings Automotive, Inc. a Minnesota corporation

represented by Jeffrey C Mateer (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jeremiah G Dys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathryn M Nash Volunteer Attorneys, Liberty Institute 80 S 8th St Ste 500 Mpls, MN 55402 612−632−3273 Fax: 612−632−4273 Email: kathryn.m.nash@gmail.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Meghann F Kantke (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Kathleen Sebelius in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Ann M Bildtsen United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5615 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: ann.bildtsen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys United States Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3367

CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 3 of 6

Email: Bradley.p.humphreys@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of Health and Human Services

represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Thomas Perez in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor

represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Labor

represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Jacob Lew in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Treasury

represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 4 of 6
PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 01/29/2014 01/29/2014
01/29/2014
01/29/2014 01/29/2014 01/29/2014 01/29/2014 01/30/2014 01/30/2014 02/13/2014 02/20/2014 02/20/2014 02/20/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief against All Defendants. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0864−3847536.) Filed by Hastings Automotive, Inc., Douglas W. Erickson, Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
2 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Plaintiffs Hastings Automotive, Inc. and Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. for their disclosure statement under Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that each of them are 100% owned by private persons and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of their stock. (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 1/29/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
3 RULE 7.1 DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Plaintiffs Hastings Automotive, Inc. and Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. for their disclosure statement under Rule 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure state that each of them are 100% owned by private persons and no publicly held corporation owns 10% or more of their stock. (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 1/29/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 01/29/2014)
4 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jeremiah G. Dys. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0864−3847778 by Douglas W. Erickson, Hastings Automotive, Inc., Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc.. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
5 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for Attorney Jeffrey C. Mateer. Filing fee $ 100, receipt number 0864−3847788 by Douglas W. Erickson, Hastings Automotive, Inc., Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc.. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
6 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Paul A. Magnuson per Civil Rights All Other List and referred to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Please use case number 14−cv−265 (PAM/JJG). (TSS) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
7 Summons Issued as to Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. (TSS) (Entered: 01/29/2014)
8 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 4 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jeremiah G Dys for Douglas W. Erickson,Hastings Automotive, Inc.,Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc.. Approved by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 1/30/2014. (MAP) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
9 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 5 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of Attorney Jeffrey C Mateer for Douglas W. Erickson,Hastings Automotive, Inc.,Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc.. Approved by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 1/30/2014. (MAP) (Entered: 01/30/2014)
10 ORDER − In re dispositive−motion practice in cases assigned to Judge Magnuson. Signed by Senior Judge Paul A. Magnuson on August 13, 2012. (SMR) (Entered: 02/13/2014)
11 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann M Bildtsen on behalf of Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. (Bildtsen, Ann) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
12 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for U.S. Government Attorney Bradley Philip Humphreys by Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. (Bildtsen, Ann) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
13 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 12 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney Bradley Philip Humphreys for Jacob Lew,Thomas Perez,Kathleen Sebelius,United States Department of Health and Human Services,United States Department of Labor,United States Department of Treasury.

CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 5 of 6

02/24/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/05/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014 03/07/2014
03/07/2014 03/14/2014
03/19/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014

Approved by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 2/20/2014. (MAP) (Entered: 02/20/2014)
14 AMENDED CIVIL COVER SHEET re 1 Complaint, by Hastings Automotive, Inc. (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 2/24/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 02/24/2014)
15 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. Jacob Lew served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
16 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. Kathleen Sebelius served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
17 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. United States Department of Health and Human Services served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
18 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. United States Department of Treasury served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
19 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. United States Department of Labor served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
20 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. Thomas Perez served on 2/24/2014, answer due 4/25/2014. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/05/2014)
21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and, MOTION to Stay by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
22 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and MOTION to Stay : at date and time to be determined. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
23 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Hastings Automotive, Inc. re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and MOTION to Stay (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
24 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: Notice re: Non−Admitted Attorney
We have received documents listing Pamela Kovacs as counsel of record. If he or she wishes to be listed as an attorney of record in this case, he or she must be admitted to the bar of the U.S. District Court of Minnesota in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (a), (b) and (c) or temporarily admitted pro hac vice in accordance with Local Rule 83.5 (d) or (e).
For more admissions information and forms, please see the Attorney Forms Section of the courts website at href=http://www.mnd.uscourts.gov/FORMS/court_forms.shtml#attorneyforms. (akl) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
25 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Motion to Stay filed by Hastings Automotive, Inc.. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 03/07/2014)
26 NOTICE OF NON−OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS by Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury re 21 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and MOTION to Stay. (Humphreys, Bradley) Modified text on 3/14/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 03/14/2014)
27 ORDER Denying 21 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; Granting 21 Motion to Stay. Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 03/19/2014. (LLM) (Entered: 03/19/2014)
28 Renewed MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by Hastings Automotive, Inc. (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 5/28/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 05/27/2014)
29 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 28 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction : at date and time to be determined. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)

CaSe: 0:14-cv-265 As Of: 06/24/2015 02:52 PM CDT 6 of 6

05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/27/2014 05/28/2014 06/30/2014 08/06/2014
12/09/2014
12/11/2014 12/11/2014 01/07/2015
01/07/2015
03/11/2015
03/12/2015

30 AFFIDAVIT of Jeremiah G. Dys in SUPPORT OF 28 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by All Plaintiffs. (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
31 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ON PROPOSED ORDER by Hastings Automotive, Inc. re 28 Second MOTION for Preliminary Injunction (Nash, Kathryn) (Entered: 05/27/2014)
32 DOCUMENT FILED IN ERROR−EXHIBIT #2 IS BLANK PAGE−REFILED AT 33 . EXHIBIT re 30 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2). (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 5/28/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 05/27/2014)
33 EXHIBIT re 30 Affidavit in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction by All Plaintiffs filed by All Plaintiffs. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2). (Nash, Kathryn) Modified text on 5/28/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 05/27/2014)
34 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction 28 . Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 05/28/2014. (LLM) (Entered: 05/28/2014)
35 LETTER TO DISTRICT JUDGE by Douglas W. Erickson, Hastings Automotive, Inc., Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) Supreme court document). (Dys, Jeremiah) Modified text on 7/1/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 06/30/2014)
36 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Graham, this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham no longer assigned to the case.NOTE: the new case number is 14−cv−265 PAM/HB. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
37 STIPULATION for Entry of Judgment by Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. DOCUMENT/ATTACHMENT FILED IN ERROR−PROPOSED ORDERS DO NOT GET FILED ON CM/ECF. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). (Humphreys, Bradley) Modified text on 12/10/2014 (lmb). (Entered: 12/09/2014)
38 ORDER. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 12/10/2014. (LLM) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
39 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice − appeal)(lmb) (Entered: 12/11/2014)
40 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. Jointly Signed by Hastings Automotive, Inc., Hastings Chrysler Center, Inc., and Douglas W. Erickson. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
41 ORDER re 40 Stipulation, filed by United States Department of Treasury, Jacob Lew, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Thomas Perez, United States Department of Labor. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the deadline for the filing of Plaintiffs motion for attorneys fees and costs is extended by forty−five days, until March 12, 2015. Signed by Judge Paul A. Magnuson on 1/7/2015. (JEP) (Entered: 01/07/2015)
42 STIPULATION for Extension of Time for Plaintiffs to File Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of Treasury. Jointly Signed by Hastings Automotive, Inc., Hastings Chyrsler Center, Inc., and Douglas W. Erickson. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 03/11/2015)
43 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Paul A. Magnuson on 3/12/2015. (JEP) (Entered: 03/12/2015)