Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 1 of 26

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE :

OF PHILADELPHIA; ST. JOHN’S ORPHAN

:

ASYLUM; ST. EDMOND’S HOME FOR

:

CRIPPLED CHILDREN; DON GUANELLA

:

VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF

:

PHILADELPHIA; DIVINE PROVIDENCE

:

VILLAGE; THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY :

FOR BOYS; CATHOLIC COMMUNITY

:

SERVICES, INC.; NUTRITIONAL

:

DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.; CATHOLIC :

HEALTH CARE SERVICES – SUPPORTIVE

:

INDEPENDENT LIVING; ST. MONICA MANOR; :

ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME;

:

IMMACULATE MARY HOME; ST. FRANCIS :

COUNTRY HOUSE; ST. MARTHA NURSING :

HOME; ST. MARY MANOR; ST. JOHN VIANNEY :

CENTER; CATHOLIC CLINICAL

:

CONSULTANTS; and the ROMAN CATHOLIC :

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

:

:

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as :

Secretary of the Department of Health and Human :

Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF :

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; THOMAS E. :

PEREZ, in his official capacity as the Secretary of the :

United States Department of Labor; UNITED

:

STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; JACOB J. :

LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the

:

United States Department of the Treasury; and THE :

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE

:

TREASURY,

:

:

Defendants.

:

Civ. No.

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs, by and through the undersigned counsel, submit this Complaint against

Defendants, and allege as follows:

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 2 of 26
1. Plaintiffs submit this complaint to seek redress for violations of their sincerely held religious beliefs by the Defendants and to seek relief from content-based restrictions on free speech. I. PARTIES
2. Plaintiff Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as Catholic Social Services. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Catholic Social Services has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
3. Plaintiff St. John’s Orphan Asylum is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as St. Francis-St. Joseph Homes for Children (a/k/a St. Francis Home for Boys). It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Francis-St. Joseph Homes for Children has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
4. Plaintiff St. Edmond’s Home for Crippled Children is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as St. Edmond’s Home (a/k/a St. Edmond’s Home for Children). It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Edmond’s Home has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
5. Plaintiff Don Guanella Village of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the
2

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 3 of 26
Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Don Guanella Village has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
6. Plaintiff Divine Providence Village is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Divine Providence Village has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
7. Plaintiff the Philadelphia Protectory for Boys is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as St. Gabriel’s System (a/k/a St. Gabriel’s Hall). It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Gabriel’s System has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
8. Plaintiff Catholic Community Services, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Catholic Community Services has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
9. Plaintiff Nutritional Development Services, Inc. is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Nutritional Development Services has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
3

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 4 of 26
10. Plaintiff Catholic Health Care Services – Supportive Independent Living is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as Villa St. Martha and Community Based Services. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Catholic Health Care Services – Supportive Independent Living has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
11. Plaintiff St. Monica Manor is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Monica Manor has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
12. Plaintiff St. John Neumann Nursing Home is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. John Neumann Nursing Home has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
13. Plaintiff Immaculate Mary Home is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Immaculate Mary Home has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
14. Plaintiff St. Francis Country House is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of
4

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 5 of 26
1986. St. Francis Country House has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
15. Plaintiff St. Martha Nursing Home is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and does business as St. Martha Manor. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Martha Manor has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
16. Plaintiff St. Mary Manor is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. Mary Manor has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
17. Plaintiff St. John Vianney Center is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. St. John Vianney Center has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
18. Plaintiff Catholic Clinical Consultants is a nonprofit corporation incorporated in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986. Catholic Clinical Consultants has a registered address of 222 N. 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103.
19. The above Plaintiffs are all affiliated with the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia. They are collectively referred to here as “the Archdiocese Affiliates.”
5

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 6 of 26
20. Plaintiff the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia (“the Archdiocese”) is an unincorporated religious organization with a principal place of administration in Philadelphia, PA. It is organized exclusively for charitable, religious, and educational purposes within the meaning of Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986.
21. Plaintiffs all adhere to Catholic principles and teachings in their operations. 22. Upon information and belief, none of the Archdiocese Affiliates qualifies as an entity described in Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code and, as such, none of the Archdiocese Affiliates qualifies as a “religious employer” under the current regulations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 23. The Archdiocese itself qualifies as a “religious employer” under the current regulations of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. 24. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services. Secretary Sebelius is an official of the United States. She is sued in her official capacity.1 25. Defendant the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is a department and agency of the United States. 26. Defendant Thomas E. Perez is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. Secretary Perez is an official of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity. 27. Defendant the United States Department of Labor (“Labor”) is a department and agency of the United States.
1 Plaintiffs are aware that Secretary Sebelius has tendered her resignation; however, upon information and belief, that resignation is not effective until a replacement is confirmed. As of the date of the filing of this complaint, the President’s nominee to replace Secretary Sebelius, Sylvia Mathews Burwell, has not been confirmed by the Senate. Once confirmed, the new secretary will automatically substitute in as a party to this matter under Fed.R.Civ.P. 25(d).
6

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 7 of 26
28. Defendant Jacob J. Lew is the Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury. Secretary Lew is an official of the United States. He is sued in his official capacity.
29. Defendant the United States Department of the Treasury (“Treasury”) is a department and agency of the United States. All Defendants are hereafter collectively referred to here as “the Departments” or “the Government.” II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
30. This Complaint is based on a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb to bb-4, and the First Amendment to the United States Constitution; as such, this Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4). This Court has jurisdiction to enter declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c).
31. Venue in this action against officers and agencies of the United States is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1). III. FACTS
A. The Contraceptive Mandate 32. In 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119 (2010), was enacted. 33. Under the ACA, a “group health plan” must provide coverage for certain “preventative care” for women per “comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4); see also 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv) (“[A] group health plan … must provide coverage for all of the following items and services …. With respect to women, to the extent not described in paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in binding comprehensive health plan coverage guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services
7

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 8 of 26
Administration.”); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv) (Labor regulation stating substantially same); 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) (Treasury regulation stating substantially same).
34. The ACA itself does not define “preventative care.” Thus, the Department of Health and Human Resources (“HHS”) tasked the Institute of Medicine (“IOM”) with developing recommendations to the Health Resources and Services Administration (“HRSA”).
35. Among the IOM’s recommendations were that group health plans cover “the full range of Food and Drug Administration [‘FDA’]-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”
36. FDA-approved contraceptive methods include oral contraceptive pills, diaphragms, intrauterine devices, and emergency contraceptives.
37. FDA-approved emergency contraceptives include Plan B, known as the “morning after pill,” and ella, known as the “week after pill.” Plan B and ella are potentially abortifacients in that they are agents that may induce an abortion.
38. The HRSA ultimately adopted the IOM’s recommendations in 2011. The foregoing paragraphs describe “the Contraceptive Mandate” under the ACA.
39. If an employer’s group health plan fails to comply with the Contraceptive Mandate, the employer is subject to devastating penalties of $100 per day per beneficiary. See 26 U.S.C. § 4980D(b)(1), (e)(1).
40. The Departments have all enacted regulations implementing the Contraceptive Mandate.
B. The “Accommodation” for “Eligible Organizations” 41. In an effort to purportedly “accommodate” certain religious entities that have a moral and religious objection to the Contraceptive Mandate, the Departments enacted various regulations regarding “eligible organizations.”
8

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 9 of 26
42. An “eligible organization” is defined as follows: (1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 147.130(a)(1)(iv) on account of religious objections. (2) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity. (3) The organization holds itself out as a religious organization. (4) The organization self-certifies, in a form and manner specified by the Secretary, that it satisfies the criteria in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section, and makes such self-certification available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (c) of this section applies. The self-certification must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a) (HHS regulation); see also 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(a) (Labor regulation); 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(a) (Treasury regulation). 43. The self-certification form described above has been issued and is known as EBSA Form 700 (attached as Exhibit A). 44. EBSA Form 700 is more than just a certification that an organization opposes contraceptive services on religious grounds. Instead, it is also, for those employers who are selfinsured (as is the case with Plaintiffs here), a legal instrument that formally designates the thirdparty administrator of the self-insured health plan as a “plan administrator” and “claims administrator” with respect to contraceptive services. 45. This means that upon receipt of the form, which is now “an instrument under which the plan is operated,” see EBSA Form 700 at 2—i.e., the plan is formally amended to create a mechanism for the provision of contraceptive services—the third party administrator could immediately begin providing contraceptive services.
9

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 10 of 26
46. But-for the Archdiocese Affiliates signing the form, the third party administrator would have no ability to act.
47. Stated otherwise: the form has specific, legal consequences—it enables an independent, non-religiously affiliated plan/claim administrator, to whom the form must be delivered, to provide contraceptive services.
48. Further, upon execution and delivery of the form, the Government then supplies financial incentives to the third party administrator to supply contraceptive services.
49. Indeed, the Government will pay the third party administrator’s costs plus a 10% premium for the provision of contraceptive services.
50. In other words, the Government provides financial incentives to the third party administrator to voluntarily act. The third party administrator is only eligible for those incentives after a party delivers the executed self-certification.
51. The regulations regarding “eligible organizations” apply to group health plans for the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014.
52. The Archdiocese Affiliates each oppose providing contraceptive coverage required by the ACA and its implementing regulations due to religious objections, each is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity, and each holds itself out as a religious organization.
53. Therefore, the Archdiocese Affiliates would otherwise be “eligible organizations” but for their refusal to sign the self-certification, which they refuse to do because doing so would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
C. The Archdiocese Health Care Plan 54. On July 1, 2013, the Archdiocese established a welfare benefits trust to fund and support a welfare benefit plan (“the Archdiocese Health Care Plan” or “the Plan”) (which has
10

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 11 of 26
multiple health plan options) for the Archdiocese, its parishes, its agencies, and activities, all of whom are participating employers in the Archdiocese Health Care Plan.
55. No person was enrolled in the Archdiocese Health Care Plan on March 23, 2010, the Plan has not continuously covered at least one person since that date, and the Plan has not supplied annual notice of its grandfathered status; therefore, the Plan is not “grandfathered” under the ACA.
56. The next plan year for the Archdiocese Health Care Plan begins on July 1, 2014, which is the first plan year beginning after January 1, 2014.
57. The Archdiocese Affiliates are all non-profit corporations affiliated with the Archdiocese and each is a participating employer in the Archdiocese Health Care Plan.
58. The plan offered by the Archdiocese, and participated in by the Archdiocese Affiliates, is a “self-insured” plan and is a “church plan” under Section 3(33) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, 29 U.S.C. § 1002(33).
59. The Archdiocese Health Care Plan is administered by a third party administrator: Independence Blue Cross.
60. The Archdiocese and its parishes, its agencies, and activities, which include each of the Archdiocese Affiliates, adhere to Catholic doctrines and teachings, which include a belief in the dignity and sanctity of human life.
61. Catholic doctrine opposes directly or indirectly providing or facilitating the use of contraceptive services. Contraceptive technology, precisely because of its impact on sexual intimacy, subverts the understanding of the purpose of sexuality, fertility, and marriage itself.
62. The Archdiocese and the Archdiocese Affiliates have sincerely held religious beliefs concerning (1) the inability to provide contraceptive services consistent with Catholic
11

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 12 of 26
principles and teachings; and (2) the inability to associate in any way with the provision of contraceptive services, since that would implicate the Archdiocese and the Archdiocese Affiliates in providing services in violation of Catholic doctrines and teachings.
63. The Archdiocese Health Care Plan is administered in conformance with Catholic beliefs, and, accordingly, the Archdiocese Health Care Plan does not provide coverage for abortions or contraception, unless the contraceptive medicine is prescribed for non-contraceptive, medical purposes.
D. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “Accommodation” Violate the RFRA 64. Neither the Archdiocese nor the Archdiocese Affiliates can offer, directly or indirectly, contraceptive services to their employees and adhere to their sincerely held Catholic beliefs on the dignity and sanctity of human life. 65. The Departments are putting substantial pressure on the Archdiocese and the Archdiocese Affiliates to offer services that interfere with the dignity and sanctity of human life.
1. The RFRA Violation for the Archdiocese Affiliates 66. If the Archdiocese Affiliates do not offer contraceptive services or if they fail to comply with the “accommodation” by signing the self-certification, they are subject to a $100 per day, per beneficiary fine—a fine that will quickly reach millions of dollars. 67. In fact, if the Archdiocese Affiliates do not comply with the Government’s demands, they will be subject collectively to a fine of approximately $160,000 per day. 68. That fine would significantly burden, if not terminate, the existence of the Archdiocese Affiliates and their mission impacting the common good. 69. There can be no clearer substantial pressure than millions of dollars in penalties and the likely cessation of these affiliated entities and their programs.
12

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 13 of 26
70. The Archdiocese Affiliates also cannot comply with the “accommodation” without violating their religious beliefs.
71. The Archdiocese Affiliates not only oppose the direct provision of contraceptive services on religious grounds, they also oppose on religious grounds even being associated the provision of such services.
72. Signing the self-certification form associates the Archdiocese Affiliates with the provision of contraceptive services and enables these services to be provided.
73. The self-certification is a legal document that has legal effects: it formally nominates the third party administrator as a “plan administrator” and “a claims administrator” for purpose of contraceptive services.
74. This means that upon receipt of the form, which is now “an instrument under which the plan is operated”—i.e., the plan is formally amended to create a mechanism for the provision of contraceptive services—the third party administrator could immediately begin providing contraceptive services.
75. But-for the Archdiocese Affiliates signing the form, the third party administrator would have no ability to act.
76. Hence, by signing the form, the Archdiocese Affiliates will have created a vital link in a chain toward the provision of contraceptive services.
77. Further, upon provision of the form to a third party administrator, the third party administrator could unilaterally choose to supply the contraceptive services.
78. If it did so, under the ACA, the Government would pay the administrator’s costs plus a 10% premium. In other words, the Government provides financial incentives to the third party administrator to voluntarily act.
13

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 14 of 26
79. As such, signing and delivering the self-certification form further embroils the Archdiocese Affiliates in the provision of contraceptive services by initiating incentives for the third party administrator to act to provide the objectionable services. Hence, signing and delivering the form violates the Archdiocese Affiliates’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
80. As demonstrated, the so-called “accommodation” results in religiously affiliated entities becoming associated with contraceptive services. In enacting the “accommodation,” Final Rules were implemented stating that eligible organizations are not required to “contract, arrange, pay, or refer to contraceptive coverage.” 78 Fed. Reg. 39870, at 39874 (July 2, 2013).
81. However, the self-certification itself forces each Archdiocese Affiliate to do most of the things the Departments say it does not: contract, arrange, and refer contraceptive coverage to its employees. Indeed, the certification (1) is contractual in nature in a process that could lead to the provision of the offending services; (2) arranges for a process in which someone other than the religious organization will determine if the religious employer’s employees will be provided contraceptive services; and (3) refers employees to a program operated at the discretion of a third party administrator who will have the sole discretion (and has a financial incentive to do so) to provide the offending services. Essentially, the so-called “accommodation” only accomplishes that an eligible organization does not have to “pay” for contraceptive coverage (and even that is tenuous in that the certification sets forth an indirect payment for the offending services).
82. In sum, to comply with the ACA and its implementing regulations and avoid directly providing the offending services, a spiritual leader designated by the Archdiocese Affiliates is mandated to take affirmative steps, including signing the self-certification, while knowing that such steps are facilitating and initiating a process toward providing offending services.
14

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 15 of 26
2. The RFRA Violation for the Archdiocese 83. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” place substantial pressure on the Archdiocese to violate its sincerely held religious beliefs, even though the Archdiocese itself is exempt from the Contraceptive Mandate. 84. Part of the religious purpose and mission for the Archdiocese is to provide support services to local parishes and affiliated Catholic ministries, such as the Archdiocese Affiliates. 85. And as part of its religious mission, the Archdiocese established the Archdiocese Health Care Plan for itself, its parishes, its agencies, and its activities, including the Archdiocese Affiliates. 86. The Archdiocese Health Care Plan does not cover contraceptive services, but if the Archdiocese Affiliates are forced to offer such services or sign the self-certification, then the Archdiocese will be facilitating the provision of contraceptive services in violation of its sincerely held religious beliefs by continuing to allow the complying Archdiocese Affiliates to participate in the Archdiocese Health Care Plan. 87. The Archdiocese cannot simply remove the Archdiocese Affiliates who comply with the Contraceptive Mandate or the “accommodation” because doing so would interfere with the Archdiocese’s ability to fulfill its pastoral ministry by and through those affiliated entities. 88. As a result of the Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation,” the Archdiocese is faced with four intolerable options: (1) sponsor a group health that provides coverage for contraceptive services (as a result of the participation by the Archdiocese Affiliates); (2) sponsor a group health plan the excludes coverage for contraceptive services but subjects the Archdiocese Affiliates to onerous fines; (3) expel the Archdiocese Affiliates from the Plan; or (4) do not sponsor a group health plan at all.
15

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 16 of 26
89. None of these options is morally acceptable to the Archdiocese, and each substantially burdens its religious exercise.
E. The Contraceptive Mandate and the Purported Accommodation Violate the Exercise Clause of the First Amendment
90. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” violate the Free Exercise Clause (as well as the Establishment Clause) of the First Amendment.
91. The Contraceptive Mandate does not apply to employers with “grandfathered” plans and employers of fewer than 50 full-time employees.
92. These two exemptions alone, which are for secular reasons, mean the employers of tens of millions of employees are not subject to the Contraceptive Mandate.
93. These substantial exemptions solely for secular reasons, while not permitting the same exemption for religious reasons, are so substantial as to mean the Contraceptive Mandate, and the “accommodation” are not laws of general applicability.
94. Further, the Government has in its sole discretion determined whether an employer receives the “religious employer” exemption or not by unilaterally, and unlawfully, deciding if the employer is religious “enough.”
95. This inter-religious discrimination further means the Contraceptive Mandate and the accommodation are not laws of general applicability.
96. Because the Government discriminates against religious employers through the Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation,” those laws are subject to strict scrutiny, and each fails strict scrutiny review.
F. The ACA Regulations Also Violate the Archdiocese Affiliates’ Free Speech Rights under the First Amendment
97. Two provisions of the ACA implementing regulations violate the Archdiocese Affiliates’ free speech rights; specifically, the emphasized portions of the following:
16

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 17 of 26
a. “The eligible organization must not, directly or indirectly, seek to interfere with a third party administrator’s arrangements to provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for participants or beneficiaries, and must not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence the third party administrator’s decision to make any such arrangements.” 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(iii) (emphasis added).
b. “The eligible organization must not, directly or indirectly, seek to interfere with a third party administrator’s arrangements to provide or arrange separate payments for contraceptive services for participants or beneficiaries, and must not, directly or indirectly, seek to influence the third party administrator’s decision to make any such arrangements.” 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(iii) (emphasis added).
98. These regulations unlawfully impose content-based restrictions on the Archdiocese Affiliates’ speech by expressly forbidding the Archdiocese Affiliates from communicating a message against contraceptive services with any third party administrator, while allowing communications that do not contain that content. IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
COUNT I: VIOLATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 99. The above paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 100. Under the RFRA, the “government” is prohibited from imposing a “substantial
burden” on a person’s “exercise of religion,” even if “the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a).
101. Plaintiffs have a sincerely held religious belief against providing, directly or indirectly, contraceptive services.
102. A substantial burden is only excused if the government satisfies its burden under a two-part strict scrutiny test: it must show “that the application of the burden to the person” “(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(a).
17

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 18 of 26
103. A violation of the RFRA may be asserted as a claim for relief in a judicial proceeding and appropriate relief against the government may be imposed. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb1(c).
104. The “government” is defined as “a branch, department, agency, instrumentality, and official (or other person acting under color of law) of the United States, or of a covered entity[.]” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-d(1).
105. The Defendants here are the “government” for purposes of the RFRA as each is either an official or department or agency.
106. The ACA and implementing regulations, developed by the Departments, impose a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ exercise of religion:
a. they require the Archdiocese Affiliates to either offer contraceptive services, in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs, or execute a form, which also violates their sincerely held religious beliefs, on penalty of substantial fines for non-compliance; and
b. they require the Archdiocese to either: (1) sponsor a group health that provides coverage for contraceptive services (as a result of the participation by the Archdiocese Affiliates); (2) sponsor a group health plan the excludes coverage for contraceptive services but subjects the Archdiocese Affiliates to onerous fines; (3) expel the Archdiocese Affiliates from the Plan; or (4) do not sponsor a group health plan at all. Each of these options violates the Archdiocese’s sincerely held religious beliefs.
107. The Departments do not have a compelling government interest for imposing these burdens. At a minimum, the ACA and implementing regulations afford so many exceptions
18

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 19 of 26
to the provision of contraceptive services (e.g., grandfathered plans, small business plans, and religious employer plans), without requiring the signing of any offending form, that the Departments cannot credibly advance any interest in imposing contraceptive services upon Plaintiffs.
108. The Departments also have not used the least restrictive means to further any interest. Indeed, any number of reasonable alternatives exist that do not require Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs, such as requiring an employee to certify to the government that she does not receive contraceptive services from her employer’s plan due to the employer’s religious objections.
109. Therefore, the RFRA has been violated by the Departments and Plaintiffs are entitled to appropriate relief. 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1(c). COUNT II: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE)
110. The above paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 111. The First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” 112. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment prohibits the Government from substantially burdening an entity’s exercise of religion. 113. The Free Exercise Clause protects organizations from Government-imposed burdens on religious exercise. 114. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” require Plaintiffs to provide, facilitate, or initiate the provision of services that are directly contrary to their religious beliefs respecting the sanctity and dignity of human life and prohibiting being associated with the provision of contraceptive services.
19

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 20 of 26
115. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” are not neutral laws of general applicability because they exempt substantial categories of employers, solely for secular reasons, while not exempting employers for religious reasons, and the exemptions are so substantial as to render any differing treatment for religious employers suspect and discriminatory.
116. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” also effect inter-religious discrimination, which further means they are not laws of general applicability.
117. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” are subject to strict scrutiny.
118. The Government has no compelling interest to require Plaintiffs to comply with the Contraceptive Mandate or the “accommodation.”
119. The Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” are not narrowly tailored to further a compelling government interest.
120. By enacting the Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation,” the Government has, therefore, burdened Plaintiffs’ religious exercise in violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and Plaintiffs are entitled to relief.
COUNT III: VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT (FREE SPEECH CLAUSE) 121. The above paragraphs are incorporated as if fully set forth herein. 122. The First Amendment protects the freedom of speech, including the right of
religious groups to speak out to persuade others to refrain from engaging in conduct that they consider contrary to their religious beliefs.
20

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 21 of 26
123. Two provisions of the ACA implementing regulations, 29 C.F.R. § 2590.7152713A(b)(1)(iii) and 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(iii), violate the Archdiocese Affiliates’ free speech rights
124. These regulations unlawfully impose content-based restrictions on the Archdiocese Affiliates’ speech, thus the regulations are presumptively invalid.
125. Also, these regulations do not survive strict scrutiny because they do not further a compelling government interest and are not narrowly tailored to any interest.
126. Therefore, the above ACA regulations issued by the Departments violate the First Amendment and the Archdiocese Affiliates are entitled to relief. V. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows: a. Injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 to preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement by the Departments of the Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” against Plaintiffs or any other participants in the health care plan at issue in this matter; b. Injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Departments from applying or enforcing upon Plaintiffs, or any other participants in the health care plan at issue in this matter, the requirements imposed in 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713(a)(1)(iv), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(a)-(b), 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), 26 C.F.R. § 54.98152713A(a)-(b), and any other law or regulation to the extent those laws or regulations (1) require Plaintiffs to provide contraceptive coverage; (2) require Plaintiffs to sign EBSA Form 700, or any other form designating any third party as a plan administrator or claims administrator for contraceptive coverage; or (3) in any way require Plaintiffs to authorize or facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage to their employees, including, but not limited to, by requiring Plaintiffs
21

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 22 of 26
to designate any third party as a plan administrator or claims administrator for contraceptive coverage;
c. Injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Departments from assessing or imposing any fine, penalty, or tax against Plaintiffs, or any other participants in the health care plan at issue in this matter, for failing to provide contraceptive coverage or execute and deliver EBSA Form 700 or any other self-certification;
d. Injunctive relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 65 to preliminarily and permanently enjoin the Departments from enforcing the speech restrictions in 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(iii) and 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(iii);
e. Declaratory judgment and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02 declaring the Contraceptive Mandate and the “accommodation” are a violation of the RFRA and the First Amendment;
f. Declaratory judgment and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02 declaring 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4), 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv), 45 C.F.R. § 147.131(a), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.7152713(a)(1)(iv), 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(a)-(b), 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv), 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(a)-(b) are a violation of the RFRA and the First Amendment to the extent those laws or regulations (1) require Plaintiffs to provide contraceptive coverage; (2) require Plaintiffs to sign EBSA Form 700, or any other form designating any third party as a plan administrator or claims administrator for contraceptive coverage; or (3) in any way require Plaintiffs to authorize or facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage to their employees, including, but not limited to, by requiring Plaintiffs to designate any third party as a plan administrator or claims administrator for contraceptive coverage;
22

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 23 of 26

g. Declaratory judgment and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02 declaring any fine,

penalty, or tax assessed or imposed against Plaintiffs for failing to provide contraceptive

coverage or execute and deliver EBSA Form 700 or any other self-certification are a violation of

the RFRA and the First Amendment;

h. Declaratory judgment and relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2201-02 declaring the speech

restrictions in 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(b)(1)(iii) and 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713A(b)(1)(iii)

are a violation of the First Amendment;

i. Attorneys’ and expert fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

j. Such other relief as the Court deems just and proper.

Respectfully submitted,

CONRAD O’BRIEN PC

Dated: June 2, 2014

By: /s/ FRE2055 Nicholas M. Centrella, Esq. (No. 67666) Frank R. Emmerich Jr., Esq. (No. 76109) Centre Square, West Tower 1500 Market Street, Ste. 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1921 Ph: (215) 864-9600 Fax: (215) 864-9620 Email: ncentrella@conradobrien.com
femmerich@conradobrien.com

Joshua J. Voss, Esq. (No. 306853) The Payne Shoemaker Building 240 North Third Street, 5th Floor Harrisburg, PA 17101 Ph: (215) 864-8081 Fax: (215) 864-7401 Email: jvoss@conradobrien.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

23

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 24 of 26
Exhibit A

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 25 of 26
EBSA FORM 700-- CERTIFICATION (To be used for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014)
This form is to be used to certify that the health coverage established or maintained or arranged by the organization listed below qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing, pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A, and 45 CFR 147.131.
Please fill out this form completely. This form must be completed by each eligible organization by the first day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014, with respect to which the accommodation is to apply, and be made available for examination upon request. This form must be maintained on file for at least 6 years following the end of the last applicable plan year. Name of the objecting organization
Name and title of the individual who is authorized to make, and makes, this certification on behalf of the organization
Mailing and email addresses and phone number for the individual listed above
I certify that, on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
Note: An organization that offers coverage through the same group health plan as a religious employer (as defined in 45 CFR 147.131(a)) and/or an eligible organization (as defined in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a); 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A(a); 45 CFR 147.131(b)), and that is part of the same controlled group of corporations as, or under common control with, such employer and/or organization (within the meaning of section 52(a) or (b) of the Internal Revenue Code), may certify that it holds itself out as a religious organization.
I declare that I have made this certification, and that, to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true and correct. I also declare that this certification is complete.
______________________________________ Signature of the individual listed above
______________________________________ Date

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 1 Filed 06/02/14 Page 26 of 26
The organization or its plan must provide a copy of this certification to the plan’s health insurance issuer (for insured health plans) or a third party administrator (for self-insured health plans) in order for the plan to be accommodated with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement.
Notice to Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans
In the case of a group health plan that provides benefits on a self-insured basis, the provision of this certification to a third party administrator for the plan that will process claims for contraceptive coverage required under 26 CFR 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv) or 29 CFR 2590.7152713(a)(1)(iv) constitutes notice to the third party administrator that the eligible organization:
(1) Will not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services; and
(2) The obligations of the third party administrator are set forth in 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A, 29 CFR 2510.3-16, and 29 CFR 2590.715-2713A.
This certification is an instrument under which the plan is operated.
PRA Disclosure Statement
According to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. The valid OMB control number for this information collection is 1210-0150. Each organizations that seeks to be recognized as an eligible organization that qualifies for an accommodation with respect to the federal requirement to cover certain contraceptive services without cost sharing is required to complete this self-certification from pursuant to 26 CFR 54.9815-2713A(a)(4) in order to obtain or retain the benefit of the exemption from covering certain contraceptive services. The self-certification must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, which generally requires records to be retained for six years. The time required to complete this information collection is estimated to average 50 minutes per response, including the time to review instructions, gather the necessary data, and complete and review the information collection. If you have comments concerning the accuracy of the time estimate(s) or suggestions for improving this form, please write to: U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Office of Policy and Research, 200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room N-5718, Washington, DC 20210 or email ebsa.opr@dol.gov and reference the OMB Control Number 1210-0150.

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE

:

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, :

et al.

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

v.

:

:

SYLVIA BURWELL, in her official

:

capacity as Secretary of the Department of :

Health and Human Services, et al.

:

:

Defendants.

:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 14-3096

MEMORANDUM

BUCKWALTER, S. J.

June 26, 2014

Pending before the Court are Plaintiffs Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of

Philadelphia, St. John’s Orphan Asylum, St. Edmond’s Home for Crippled Children, Don

Guanella Village of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia, Divine Providence Village, The

Philadelphia Protectory for Boys, Catholic Community Services, Inc., Nutritional Development

Services, Inc., Catholic Health Care Services Supportive Independent Living, St. Monica Manor,

St. John Neumann Nursing Home, Immaculate Mary Home, St. Francis Country House, St.

Martha Nursing Home, St. Mary Manor, St. John Vianney Center, Catholic Clinical Consultants,

and the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia (collectively “the Archdiocese” or

“Plaintiffs”)’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. For the following reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion

for a Preliminary Injunction is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

A. The Parties

Plaintiff Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia is a territory of the Roman

Catholic Church constituting the counties of Philadelphia, Bucks, Chester, Delaware, and Montgomery in Pennsylvania. (Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj., Decl. of Joseph A. Sweeney, Jr. (Sweeney Decl.) ¶¶ 11–12.) Catholic Human Services of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Philadelphia is an organization overseeing the operations of the remaining Plaintiffs. (Id. ¶¶ 5,7.) Defendants Sylvia Burwell,1 Thomas Perez, and Jacob Lew (collectively “the Government” or “Defendants”) are the Secretaries of the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services (“HHS”), Labor, and Treasury, respectively.
B. Plaintiffs’ Religious Beliefs and Self-Insured Health Care Plan Plaintiffs’ mission is to “proclaim to everyone the Good News that Jesus Christ is the Light of the world, who offers to all who follow Him the light of life.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Plaintiffs’ programs are “driven by, and grounded in, Catholic teaching[.]” (Id. ¶ 9.) “The [Roman Catholic] Church teaches that life begins at the moment of conception, sexual union should be reserved to committed marital relationships in which husband and wife are open to the transmission of life, and, therefore, artificial interference with life and conception are contrary to core beliefs.” (Id. ¶ 146.) As such, “[t]he Church opposes directly or indirectly providing or facilitating the use of contraceptive services” or “associat[ing] in any way with the provision of contraceptive services.” (Id. ¶¶ 147, 153.) Plaintiffs provide health insurance to more than 4,000 employees through a self-insured plan, with Independence Blue Cross serving as its third-party administrator. (Id. ¶ 6, 139.) Plaintiffs’ self-insured health care plan is a “church plan,” exempted from the requirements of the
1 At the time Plaintiffs initiated the present case, Kathleen Sebelius was Secretary of Health and Human Services. This case caption has been amended to substitute Sylvia Burwell as the current Secretary of Health and Human Services.
2

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”) under 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(2). (Id. ¶ 138.) Plaintiffs’ plan “does not offer coverage for contraceptives, with the exception of prescription and use of contraceptive medications for non-contraceptive, medical purposes.” (Id. ¶ 142.) Plaintiffs’ current health care plan began on July 1, 2013, and will expire on June 30, 2014. (Id. ¶ 135.)
C. Contraceptive Coverage Requirement Under the ACA and the Exemption for Eligible Religious Organizations 1. Contraceptive Coverage Requirement
On January 1, 2014, many provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) went into effect. Among the new rules was a requirement that group health plans for organizations with at least fifty full-time employees provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for “such additional preventative care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration [“HRSA”]” including “the full range of [Food and Drug Administration]-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive capacity.”2 26 U.S.C. § 4980H(c)(2); 42 U.S.C. § 300gg–13(a)(4); Inst. of Med. Clinical Preventative Servs. for
2 Defendants represent that “[b]ecause there were no existing HRSA guidelines relating to preventative care, HHS requested that the Institute of Medicine [“IOM”] develop recommendations to implement the requirement to provide coverage, without cost-sharing, for preventative services for women. . . . On August 1, 2011, HRSA adopted guidelines consistent with IOM’s recommendations, subject to an exemption relating to certain religious employers authorized by regulations issued that same day” and adopted the guidelines into final rules on February 12, 2012. (Defs.’ Resp. Opp’n Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 6); see also 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8726–27. Plaintiffs do not dispute Defendants’ account of the rulemaking process.
3

Women: Closing the Gaps, 10–12 (2011).3 This is the so-called “contraceptive mandate.”
Certain group health plans were exempted from this requirement under a “grandfathering”
provision.4 42 U.S.C. § 18011; 45 C.F.R. § 147.140; 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-1251; 26 C.F.R. §
54.9815-1251T.
2. Rights and Responsibilities of Eligible Religious Organizations and EBSA Form 700
Religious organizations with more than fifty employees may exempt themselves from the
group health plan contraceptive coverage requirements if they meet the following criteria:
(1) The organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services required to be covered under [45] § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)5 on account of religious objections.
(2) The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
(3) The organization holds itself out as a religious organization.
(4) The organization self-certifies . . . and makes such self-certification available for examination upon request by the first day of the first plan year to which the accommodation in paragraph (c) of this section applies. The self-certification must be executed by a person authorized to make the certification on behalf of the organization, and must be maintained in a manner consistent with the record retention requirements under section 107 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.
3 As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Supreme Court has not yet issued a decision in its review of the United States Court of Appeals for Third Circuit in Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec’y of U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Servs.,724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S.Ct. 678 (2013), as consolidated with its review of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. v. Sebelius, 723 F.3d 1114 (10th Cir. 2013).
4 Plaintiffs’ group health plan was not “grandfathered.” (Compl. ¶ 55.)
5 “With respect to women . . . evidence-informed preventive care and screenings provided for in binding comprehensive health plan coverage guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv).
4

45 C.F.R. § 147.131(b). To self-certify as an “eligible organization,” an organization executes and delivers to its
health care plan administrator Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) Form 700. (Compl., Ex. A, EBSA Form 700.) In completing and signing EBSA Form 700, an organization’s signing official certifies that “on account of religious objections, the organization opposes providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered; the organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; and the organization holds itself out as a religious organization.” (Id.) The form provides further notice specifically to “Third Party Administrators of Self-Insured Health Plans” that the self-insuring eligible organization “[w]ill not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services” and that the completed certification “is an instrument under which the plan is operated.” (Id.)
Should an otherwise non-exempt organization fail to either self-certify as an eligible religious organization or comply with the ACA’s contraceptive coverage requirements, the organization is subject to a tax equal to “$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), (e)(1). Plaintiffs estimate that the amount of the potential tax it would have to pay for noncompliance would be $160,000 per day. (Sweeney Decl. ¶ 145.)
3. Rights and Responsibilities of Third-Party Administrators A third-party administrator may not charge a self-certified eligible religious organization any premiums, fees, or other charges, directly or indirectly, with respect to contraceptives. 29 C.F.R.§ 2590.715-2713A(b)(2). If a third-party administrator pays for and provides
5

contraceptives to the participants and beneficiaries of the eligible organization’s group health

plan, the third-party administrator may seek reimbursement for the “total dollar amount of the

payments for contraceptive services” plus “an allowance for administrative costs and margin . . .

no less than 10 percent of the total dollar amount of the payments for contraceptive services.” 29

C.F.R.§ 2590.715-2713A(d); 45 C.F.R. § 156.50(d)(2–3).

D. Procedural History

Plaintiffs initiated the present litigation on June 2, 2014. Plaintiffs bring three counts

against Defendants: (1) a violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“RFRA”), 42

U.S.C. § 2000bb-1; (2) a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the

U.S. Constitution; and (3) a violation of the Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment

to the U.S. Constitution. On the same day they filed their Complaint, Plaintiffs moved for a

preliminary injunction, seeking an order enjoining Defendants from “requir[ing] Plaintiffs to

provide contraceptive coverage,” “requir[ing] Plaintiffs to sign EBSA Form 700,” “in any way

requir[ing] Plaintffs to authorize or facilitate the provision of contraceptive coverage to their

employees,” or assessing “any fine, penalty, or tax . . . for failing to execute and deliver EBSA

Form 700[.]” On June 17, 2014, Defendants filed their Response in Opposition. On June 20,

2014, the Plaintiffs filed their Reply. This Court heard oral argument on the Motion on June 24,

2014, making it ripe for review.

II.

DISCUSSION

Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. To be entitled to a preliminary injunction, a movant must show “(1) a

likelihood of success on the merits; (2) he or she will suffer irreparable harm if the injunction is

6

denied; (3) granting relief will not result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) the

public interest favors such relief.” Bimbo Bakeries USA, Inc. v. Botticella, 613 F.3d 102, 109

(3d Cir. 2010) (quoting Miller v. Mitchell, 598 F.3d 139, 147 (3d Cir. 2009)). “A plaintiff’s

failure to establish any element in its favor renders a preliminary injunction inappropriate.”

NutraSweet Co. v. Vit-Mar Enters., Inc., 176 F.3d 151, 153 (3d Cir. 1999) (citing Optician’s

Ass’n of Am. v. Indep. Opticians of Am., 920 F.2d 187, 192 (3d Cir. 1990)). The Court begins

its analysis by assessing the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ success on the merits of their claims.

A.

RFRA Claim

Count One of the Complaint alleges a violation of the RFRA. Under the RFRA, the

Government may not “substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden

results from a rule of general applicability” unless the burden “(1) is in furtherance of a

compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that

compelling governmental interest.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb–1(a) and (b). A “substantial burden”

exists where the Government compels a plaintiff “to perform acts undeniably at odds with

fundamental tenets of their religious beliefs.” Wisc. v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 218 (1972). A

“substantial burden” also exists where the Government “put[s] substantial pressure on an

adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs[.]” Thomas v. Review Bd. of Ind.

Emp’t Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717–18 (1981).

1. Plaintiffs’ Standing

As a preliminary matter, the Court has some doubt as to whether Plaintiffs have standing

to bring an RFRA challenge to the contraceptive mandate because the contraceptive mandate

might not be enforceable against Plaintiffs or their third-party administrator in the first place. It

7

is undisputed that Plaintiffs offer their employees health insurance through a self-insured “church plan.” A “church plan” is explicitly exempt from the requirements of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(2). At least one court has found that:
It is ERISA that accords the government authority to penalize any third-party administrator that undertakes to pay for the coverage by remaining in its contractual relationship with the self-certifying organization but then fails to make the necessary payments or arrangements. See 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3–16(b). . . . The church plan plaintiffs have not alleged an injury in fact that will flow from filing the self-certification form because that form has no effect other than to relieve their burden to provide contraceptive services coverage. Therefore, the church plan plaintiffs lack standing to bring the RFRA claim[.] Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington v. Sebelius, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, No. Civ.A. 131441, 2013 WL 6729515, *24, *26 (D.D.C. Dec. 20, 2013). Indeed, 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3–16(b) states that an eligible religious organization’s self-certification “shall be treated as a designation of the third-party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services required to be covered under § 2590.715–2713(a)(1)(iv) of this chapter to which the eligible organization objects on religious grounds, and shall supersede any earlier designation.” Id. (emphasis added). Moreover, 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3–16(b) sets forth a third-party administrator’s responsibilities “as incorporated into section 715 of ERISA.” Id. It is unclear whether, as the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Washington court found, this rule is unenforceable in the case of an ERISA-exempt “church plan,” or if the words “shall supersede any earlier designation” removes the exemption of a “church plan” from ERISA for purposes of the provision of contraceptive services. At this juncture, the Court need not, and
8

does not, decide the issue of Plaintiffs’ standing to bring their claims. The uncertainty of Plaintiffs’ standing, however, decreases the likelihood of success on the merits of their claims.
2. Substance of Plaintiffs’ RFRA Claim Assuming for purposes of the pending motion only that Plaintiffs have standing to bring the present action, the Court addresses the substance of Plaintiffs’ RFRA claim. “[P]laintiffs bear the initial burden under the RFRA of establishing ‘that application of the offensive law or policy would substantially burden a sincere, religious exercise.’” Geneva Coll. v. Sebelius, 929 F. Supp. 2d 402, 427 (W.D. Pa. 2013) (“Geneva Coll. I”) (citing Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, 917 F. Supp. 2d 394, 410 (E.D. Pa. 2013)), aff’d 724 F.3d 377 (3d Cir. 2013), cert. granted, 134 S. Ct. 678 (2013)); see also Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Uniao de Vegetal, 546 U.S. 418, 429 (2006) (holding that a plaintiff meets its prima facie burden under RFRA where a Government action would “(1) substantially burden (2) a sincere (3) religious belief”). Defendants do not contest the sincerity of Plaintiffs’ religious beliefs. Even so, Plaintiffs still cannot show likelihood of success on the merits of their RFRA claim because they have not met their burden to make a prima facie showing of a substantial burden. Plaintiffs argue that it is a substantial burden for them to execute and deliver EBSA Form 700 to Independence Blue Cross, their third-party plan administrator, because doing so would “create a vital link in a chain toward the provision of contraceptive services.” (Pls.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. for Prelim. Inj., 19.)6
6 While it is correct that “‘[c]ourts should not undertake to dissect religious beliefs’ when analyzing substantial burden questions,” Geneva College v. Sebelius, 941 F. Supp. 2d 672, 682 (2013) (“Geneva College II”) (quoting Thomas, 450 U.S. at 715), it is entirely within the courts’ purview to analyze whether a burden on a sincere, religious belief is substantial. “If every plaintiff were permitted to unilaterally determine that a law burdened their religious beliefs, and
9

Yet, EBSA Form 700 does not have the legal effect that Plaintiffs assert it has. Instead, EBSA Form 700 only provides notice to Plaintiffs’ third-party administrator that Plaintiffs “oppos[e] providing coverage for some or all of any contraceptive services that would otherwise be required to be covered” and therefore “[w]ill not act as the plan administrator or claims administrator with respect to claims for contraceptive services, or contribute to the funding of contraceptive services.” (EBSA Form 700.) For two reasons in particular, EBSA Form 700 is not the “vital link” to contraceptives coverage.
First, in light of the uncertainty about ERISA’s applicability to a “church plan” in this case, the provision of contraceptives by a third-party administrator to a “church plan” might be purely voluntary. As Plaintiffs assert and the Government concedes, “ERISA enforcement authority is not available with respect to the [third-party administrators] of self-insured church plans under the regulations, and the government cannot compel such [third-party administrators] to provide contraceptive coverage to self-insured church plan participants and beneficiaries, including the employees of plaintiffs and their covered defendants.” (Defs.’ Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law ¶ 23 (citing 29 U.S.C. § 1003(b)(2), and 78 Fed. Reg. 8456 (Feb. 6, 2013).)7 If the parties are correct, this would lessen any burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of
courts were required to assume that such burden was substantial, simply because the plaintiff claimed that it was the case, then the standard expressed by Congress under the RFRA would convert to an ‘any burden’ standard.” Conestoga, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 413–14 (citing Washington v. Klem, 497 F.3d 272, 279–81 (3d Cir. 2007)).
7 Given that 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3–16(b) says that the submission of EBSA Form 700 “shall be treated as a designation of the third-party administrator as the plan administrator under section 3(16) of ERISA for any contraceptive services” and that such designation “shall supersede any earlier designation,” the Court is not certain that this is correct. See supra (II)(A)(1).
10

religion, as there would be no enforcement mechanism by which the Government could mandate that Independence Blue Cross provide contraceptive services to the participants and beneficiaries in Plaintiffs’ plan.
Plaintiffs argue that because third-party administrators to eligible religious organizations may seek reimbursement from the Government for a “total dollar amount of the payments for contraceptive services” plus “an allowance for administrative costs and margin . . . no less than 10 percent of the total dollar amount of the payments for contraceptive services,” 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-2713A(d); 45 C.F.R. § 156.50(d)(2–3), the Government is applying “substantial pressure on the Archdiocese Affiliates to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs” because the Government is “initiating incentives for the third party administrator to provide the objectionable services.” (Pls.’ Mem. Supp. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 20, 22.) There is no evidence in the record to support Plaintiffs’ speculation that Independence Blue Cross will provide contraceptive services to the participants and beneficiaries of Plaintiffs’ self-insured plan simply because doing so would make Independence Blue Cross eligible to receive a Government benefit. It is equally conceivable that Independence Blue Cross would conclude that it is in its overall economic interest to forego the Government benefit and continue to adhere to the wishes of its client. Moreover, it is well established that, pursuant to the Spending Clause of Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, Congress may “further broad policy objectives by conditioning receipt of federal moneys upon compliance by the recipient with federal statutory and administrative directives.” S.D. v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 206 (1987) (quotation omitted).
Second, assuming—again for purposes of the pending motion only— that ERISA does apply to Plaintiffs’ “church plan” for purposes of the coverage of contraceptives, the “vital link
11

toward the provision of contraceptives” is still not EBSA Form 700. Rather, the “vital link”
would be federal law, enacted by Congress and promulgated through regulations by the U.S.
Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury. While the Third Circuit has
yet to rule on the issue,8 two other circuit courts have concluded that the contraceptive mandate
and the accommodation for eligible religious organizations do not impose a “substantial burden.”
See Univ. of Notre Dame v. Sebelius, 743 F.3d 547, 556 (7th Cir. 2014) and Mich. Catholic
Conference and Catholic Family Servs. v. Burwell, ___ F.3d ___, Nos. Civ.A. 13-2723; 13-6640,
2014 WL 2596753, at *12 (6th Cir. June 11, 2014). In both University of Notre Dame and
Michigan Catholic Conference, the plaintiffs characterized the execution and delivery of EBSA
Form 700 to their third-party administrators as a “trigger” to contraceptive coverage for their plan
participants and beneficiaries. Univ. of Notre Dame, 743 F.3d at 554; Mich. Catholic
Conference, 2014 WL 2596753 at *6. Presented with this argument in Michigan Catholic
Conference, the Sixth Circuit opined as follows:
Submitting the self-certification form to the insurance issuer or third-party administrator does not “trigger” contraceptive coverage; it is federal law that requires the insurance issuer or the third-party administrator to provide this coverage. The ACA requires “[a] group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage” to “provide coverage for . . . with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings . . . as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 300gg–13(a), (a)(4). Thus, under the ACA, the appellants’ health plans and insurance issuers must provide contraceptive coverage without cost-sharing, whether or not the appellants decide to self-certify.
8 As of the date of this Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Third Circuit has not yet held oral argument on the Government’s pending appeal of the grant of a preliminary injunction in the consolidated cases of Zubik v. Sebelius and Persico v. Sebelius, ___ F. Supp. 2d ___, Nos. Civ.A. 13-1459, 13-0303, 2014 WL 6118696 (W.D. Pa. Nov. 21, 2013).
12

“Federal law, not the religious organization’s signing and mailing the form, requires health-care insurers, along with third-party administrators of self-insured health plans, to cover contraceptive services.” Univ. of Notre Dame, 743 F.3d at 554. . . . The obligation to cover contraception will not be triggered by the act of self-certification— it already was triggered by the enactment of the ACA.

Mich. Catholic Conference, 2014 WL 2596753, at *9. This Court agrees with the Sixth Circuit’s

analysis that “it is federal law that requires the insurance issuer or the third-party administrator to

provide this coverage” and therefore “[t]he obligation to cover contraception will not be triggered

by the act of self-certification[.]” Id.

Given the doubt regarding Plaintiffs’ standing and the limited notice effect of EBSA

Form 700, Plaintiffs have not met their burden to make a prima facie showing of a substantial

burden on their exercise of religion. In the absence of such a showing from Plaintiffs, the Court

need not reach the issues of the Government’s compelling government interest or whether any

Government interest is being achieved through the least restrictive means. The Court cannot find

a likelihood of success on the merits as to Plaintiffs’ claim under the RFRA. Accordingly, the

Court must deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to its RFRA claim.

B.

Free Exercise Claim

Count Two of the Complaint alleges that Defendants have violated Plaintiffs’ rights under

the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. The First

Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or

prohibiting the free exercise thereof[.]” U.S. Const. amend I. A law that is neutral and generally

applicable is subject to rational basis review and does not violate the Free Exercise Clause even

where that law has the practical effect of burdening a particular religious exercise. Emp’t Div.,

13

Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990), (recognized as partially superseded on other grounds, Sossamon v. Texas, ___ U.S. ___, 131 S. Ct. 1651 (Apr. 20, 2013)). “Neutrality and general applicability are interrelated, and . . . failure to satisfy one requirement is a likely indication that the other has not been satisfied.” Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 521 (1993). A law is neutral if it does not “target religious conduct for distinctive treatment” either on its face or as applied in practice and it is generally applicable if it does not “impose burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief[.]” Id. at 533–34, 543–44.
As to the neutrality of the contraceptive mandate and the religious organization accommodation, it is apparent from the text of the statute and regulations, as well as the recommendations of the Institute of Medicine that informed the regulations, that “the purpose of the [regulations] is not to target religion, but instead to promote public health and gender equality.” Conestoga, 917 F. Supp. 2d at 410. “[N]either the text nor the history of the statute of the statute and the regulations promulgated pursuant to the statute demonstrate that the requirement was targeted at a particular religious practice,” and, as such, “[t]he contraceptivecoverage requirement is a neutral law.” Mich. Catholic Conference, 2014 WL 2596753, at *15.
As to general applicability, Plaintiffs argue that because there are secular exemptions to the contraceptive mandate, including the “grandfathering” provision and the exemption for organizations with fewer than fifty employees, “any claim of general applicability by the Government is ‘dubious, at best.’” (Pls.’ Mem Supp. Mot. for Prelim. Inj. 29 (quoting Geneva Coll. I, 929 F. Supp. 2d at 437.) Yet, “[s]pecific exemptions to a law that are equally available to the adherents of a religious belief do not affect the law’s general applicability.” Roman Catholic
14

Archdiocese of Atlanta v. Sebelius, No. Civ.A. 12-3489, 2014 WL 1256373, at *24 (N.D. Ga. Mar. 26, 2014).9 Here, the Government’s interest in requiring coverage of contraceptive services

“is pursued uniformly against all businesses that are not grandfathered and have more than fifty

employees.” Mich. Catholic Conference, 2014 WL 2596753, at *16. In other words, regardless

of whether an organization is exempt from the contraceptive mandate because it has fewer than

fifty full-time employees, because its health plan was “grandfathered,” or because it is an eligible

organization with a religious opposition to contraceptives, the exemptions to the contraceptive

mandate are equally available to religious and secular organizations. As the Government made

secular and religious exemptions equally available, it is clear that the contraceptive mandate is

“generally applicable.”

Because the contraceptive mandate is neutral and generally applicable, it is subject to

rational basis review. The contraceptive mandate is rationally related to the Government’s

legitimate interest in advancing public health and gender equality. Accordingly, the Court cannot

find that Plaintiffs have met their burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their

free exercise claim and the Court will deny injunctive relief as to that count of their Complaint.

C.

Freedom of Speech Claim

Count Three of the Complaint alleges that Defendants violated Plaintiffs’ rights under the

Freedom of Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The First Amendment states that “Congress

shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend I. Plaintiffs allege

that the religious organization accommodation to the contraceptive mandate violates their free

9 Notably, the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Atlanta court granted an injunction as to the plaintiffs’ challenge to the contraceptive mandate under the RFRA, but denied relief as to the plaintiffs’ free exercise claim. Id. at *33.
15

speech rights. (Compl. ¶ 123.) In the case of the contraceptive mandate, however, “[t]he

regulations do not require the accommodated entity to ‘provide’ contraceptive counseling,” nor

do the regulations “compel the [Plaintiffs’] speech by forcing them to pay for contraceptive

counseling,” and “the requirements do not force the [accommodated entity] to facilitate access to

contraceptive counseling.” Mich. Catholic Conference, 2014 WL 2596753 at *6, *12–13. In any

event, “[i]t is not clear what speech, exactly, [Plaintiffs] believe is compelled by the facilitation

of such coverage.” Id. at *13.

As to EBSA Form 700, the execution and delivery of the form does not “trigger”

contraceptive coverage, nor does it “deprive [Plaintiffs] of the freedom to speak out about

abortion and contraception on their own terms.” Id. While the Government may not compel

speech where “an individual is obliged personally to express a message he disagrees with,”

Johanns v. Livestock Mktg. Ass’n, 544 U.S. 550, 557 (2005), if the Government has compelled

any speech here, it is only compelling Plaintiffs to make a statement with which they agree, i.e.,

that they oppose coverage for contraceptives. Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success

on the merits of their freedom of speech claim, and the Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion as to

that count of its Complaint.

III.

CONCLUSION

Plaintiffs have not shown a likelihood of success as to any of their claims and have

therefore not met their burden to show that they are entitled to injunctive relief. Accordingly, the

Court will deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction on the entirety of their Complaint.

An appropriate order follows.

16

 
 Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 46 Filed 09/25/14 Page 1 of 2
Case: 14-3126 Document: 003111746557 Page: 1 Date Filed: 09/24/2014
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TIDRD CIRCUIT July 29, 2014 BC0-112E
No. 14-3126
CATHOLIC CHARITIES ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA; ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM;
ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN; DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA;
DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE; THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS;
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES INC; NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INC; CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING; ST. MONICA MANOR; ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME; IMMACULATE MARY HOME; ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE; ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME; ST. MARY MANOR; ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER; CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS; ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA,
Appellants v.
SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SECRETARY UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TREASURY
(E.D. Pa. No. 14-cv-03096)
Present: AMBRO, CHAGARES and VANASKIE, Circuit Judges
1. Emergency Motion by Appellants for Injunction Pending Appeal;
2. Response by Appellants to 7/8114 Clerk Order;
3. Response by Appellees to Appellants' Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal;
4. Reply by Appellants to Response to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal;

Case 2:14-cv-03096-RB Document 46 Filed 09/25/14 Page 2 of 2 Case: 14-3126 Document: 003111746557 Page: 2 Date Filed: 09/24/2014

5. Response by Appellees to Court's Order of August 14, 2014; and

6. Response by Appellants to Court's Order of August 14, 2014.

Respectfully, Clerk/mlr/tmk

ORDER

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

-~~~~~~~~~~~~~-

1n light of the Supreme Court's decisions in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S.

Ct. 2751 (2014), and Wheaton Coll. v. Burwell, 134 S. Ct. 2806 (2014), both of which

postdate the District Court's denial of a preliminary injunction in this case, as well as the

interim final rule promulgated by the Government-Coverage of Certain Preventive

Services Under the Affordable Care Act, 79 Fed. Reg. 51,092 (Aug. 27, 2014) (to be

codified at 26 C.F.R. pt. 54, 29 C.F.R. pts. 2510 & 2590, and 45 C.F.R. pt. 147)-we

vacate and remand to the District Court for reconsideration of its decision denying the

preliminary injunction. To preserve the status quo, we temporarily enjoin the

Government from imposing any fines until such time as the District Court makes its

decision on reconsideration.

By the Court,

Dated: SLC/cc:

September 2, 2014 Frank R. Emmerich, Jr. Adam C. Jed Alisa B. Klein Patrick Nemeroff MarkB. Stem Joshua J. Voss

s/ Michael A. Chagares Circuit Judge
Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

 
 Case 2:14-cv-03096-AB Document 55 Filed 08/23/16 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE

:

ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, et :

al.,

:

:

Plaintiffs,

:

:

v.

: No. 14-cv-3096-AB

:

SYLVIA M. BURWELL, in her official :

capacity as Secretary of the Department of :

Health and Human Services, et al.,

:

:

Defendants.

:

JOINT STATUS REPORT Plaintiffs and Defendants, by and through counsel, hereby provide this joint status report

pursuant to the Court’s August 9, 2016 Order:

1. The claims in this matter are similar to those presently before the Third Circuit

Court of Appeals in the matter captioned Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 13-3536, 14-1374, 14-1376, 14-

1377. See Joint Stipulation (Jan. 16, 2015), ECF No. 47. Zubik is on remand to the Third Circuit

from the United States Supreme Court, see Zubik v. Burwell, 136 S. Ct. 1557 (2016) (per

curiam), and the Third Circuit has stayed the matter and ordered the parties to provide periodic

updates, see Order, Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 13-3536, 14-1374, 14-1376, 14-1377 (3d Cir. July 25,

2016); Order, Zubik v. Burwell, Nos. 13-3536, 14-1374, 14-1376, 14-1377 (3d Cir. June 28,

2016).

2. After this Court (Buckwalter, J.) denied Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary

injunction, see Order (June 26, 2014), ECF No. 38, Plaintiffs appealed, the Third Circuit granted

Plaintiffs’ Emergency Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal “temporarily pending further order

of the Court [of Appeals],” see Order, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia v.

Case 2:14-cv-03096-AB Document 55 Filed 08/23/16 Page 2 of 3
Burwell, No. 14-3126 (3d Cir. June 27, 2014), and this Court stayed further proceedings pending appeal, see Order (July 28, 2014), ECF No. 45. Thereafter, the Third Circuit issued an order vacating this Court’s denial of Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, remanding this case to this Court for reconsideration, and “temporarily enjoin[ing] the Government from imposing any fines until such time as the District Court makes its decision on reconsideration.” Order, Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia v. Burwell, No. 14-3126 (3d Cir. Sept. 2, 2014).
3. Upon the parties’ joint stipulation, on January 21, 2015, this Court stayed all proceedings in this matter pending the Third Circuit’s resolution of Zubik. See Order (Jan. 21, 2015), ECF No. 48; Order (Oct. 19, 2015), ECF No. 50 (continuing the stay). Accordingly, this matter is presently “STAYED until further consideration and order of the Court,” and the Court has directed “Plaintiffs [to] advise the Court of whether Plaintiffs wish to continue their claims” “within 14 days of the Third Circuit issuing the mandate in Zubik.” Order (Oct. 19, 2015), ECF No. 50.
4. As noted above, the Third Circuit has yet to resolve Zubik. The parties in this matter jointly agree that resolution of Zubik is very likely to have significant effects on the issues before this Court, and therefore, Plaintiffs and Defendants jointly agree that this matter should remain stayed pending the Third Circuit’s mandate in Zubik. Accordingly, the parties respectfully request that the Court’s October 19, 2015 Order remain undisturbed.

Case 2:14-cv-03096-AB Document 55 Filed 08/23/16 Page 3 of 3

Dated: August 23, 2016
/s/ Frank R. Emmerich Jr. Nicholas M. Centrella, Esq. (No. 67666) Frank R. Emmerich Jr., Esq. (No. 76109) CONRAD O’BRIEN PC Centre Square, West Tower 1500 Market Street, Ste. 3900 Philadelphia, PA 19102-1921 Ph: (215) 864-9600 Fax: (215) 864-9620 Email: ncentrella@conradobrien.com
femmerich@conradobrien.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Respectfully submitted,
BENJAMIN C. MIZER Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
ZANE DAVID MEMEGER United States Attorney
JENNIFER D. RICKETTS Director
SHEILA M. LIEBER Deputy Director
/s/ Adam Grogg ADAM GROGG Trial Attorney U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave. NW Washington, DC 20530 phone: (202) 514-2395 fax: (202) 616-8470 email: adam.a.grogg@usdoj.gov
Counsel for Defendants

 
 Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 1 of 14
CLOSED,SPECIAL
United States District Court Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:14−cv−03096−AB

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA et al v. SEBELIUS et al Assigned to: HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY Case in other court: USCA FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT,
14−03126 Cause: 42:2000bb Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 06/02/2014 Date Terminated: 08/24/2018 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. ECKERT SEAMANS CHERIN & MELLOTT LLC 50 SOUTH 16TH ST 22ND FL TWO LIBERTY PLACE PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−851−8409 Email: femmerich@eckertseamans.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS KLEINBARD LLC 1717 Arch Street 5th Floor Philadelphia, PA 19103 717−836−7492 Fax: 215−568−0140 Email: jvoss@kleinbard.com TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA CONRAD O'BRIEN 1500 MARKET ST., CENTRE SQUARE WEST TOWER 39TH FLOOR PHILADELPHIA, PA 19102 215−864−8098 Fax: 215−864−0798 Email: ncentrella@conradobrien.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 2 of 14

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 3 of 14

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC.

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ST. MONICA MANOR TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff
ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff

represented by

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 4 of 14

IMMACULATE MARY HOME TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff
ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff
ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff
ST. MARY MANOR TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015 LEAD ATTORNEY

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/21/2015

Plaintiff ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 5 of 14

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA

represented by FRANK R. EMMERICH , JR. (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOSHUA VOSS (See above for address) TERMINATED: 01/06/2016

NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant KATHLEEN SEBELIUS IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202−514−2395 Email: adam.a.grogg@usdoj.gov TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT U.S. DEPT OF JUSTICE CIVIL DIV FED PROGRAMS BRANCH 20 MASSACHUSETTS AVE NW WASHINGTON, DC 20001 202−305−8902 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 6 of 14

Defendant THOMAS E. PEREZ IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS THE SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Defendant UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Defendant JACOB J. LEW IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Defendant THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/15/2017 LEAD ATTORNEY
MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 06/02/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT against JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 102009.), filed by ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., ST. MARY MANOR, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ST. MONICA MANOR, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN. (Attachments: # 1 Case Management Track Form, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet, # 3 Designation Form)(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 7 of 14

06/02/2014
06/02/2014
06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014 06/02/2014

Summons Issued as to JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Seven Forwarded To: Counsel, one given to AUSA on 6/2/14 (jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
2 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. Memorandum Of Law. Declaration. Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration)(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
3 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
4 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
5 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
6 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
7 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
8 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
9 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC..(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
10 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC..(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
11 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
12 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. MONICA MANOR.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
13 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
14 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by IMMACULATE MARY HOME.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
15 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
16 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
17 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. MARY MANOR.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
18 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
19 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 8 of 14

06/02/2014 06/02/2014
06/02/2014
06/03/2014 06/09/2014 06/10/2014 06/17/2014 06/18/2014 06/20/2014

20 Disclosure Statement Form pursuant to FRCP 7.1 by ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA.(jwl, ) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
21 NOTICE of Appearance by JOSHUA VOSS on behalf of IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS with Certificate of Service(VOSS, JOSHUA) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
22 NOTICE of Appearance by NICHOLAS M. CENTRELLA on behalf of IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS with Certificate of Service(CENTRELLA, NICHOLAS) (Entered: 06/02/2014)
23 Acceptance of Service by U.S. Attorney Re: accepted summons and complaint on behalf of the United States Attorney (only). (dp, ) (Entered: 06/03/2014)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG on behalf of JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR with Certificate of Service(GROGG, ADAM) (Entered: 06/09/2014)
25 ORDER THAT ORAL ARGUMENT ON PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION IS SCHEDULED FOR 6/24/14 AT 10:00 AM IN COURTROOM 14A. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 6/10/14. 6/10/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/10/2014)
26 RESPONSE in Opposition re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Appendix Attachment 1)(GROGG, ADAM) (Entered: 06/17/2014)
27 NOTICE of Appearance by MICHELLE RENEE BENNETT on behalf of JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR with Certificate of Service(BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 06/18/2014)
28 REPLY in further support of re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 9 of 14

06/20/2014 06/21/2014
06/22/2014
06/23/2014 06/23/2014 06/24/2014 06/25/2014

NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS, certificate of service. (EMMERICH, FRANK) Modified on 6/23/2014 (fb). (Entered: 06/20/2014)
29 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, memorandum, certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Exhibit)(GROGG, ADAM) Modified on 6/23/2014 (fb). (Entered: 06/20/2014)
30 NOTICE by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS re 2 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction of Supplemental Authority, certificate of service. (EMMERICH, FRANK) Modified on 6/23/2014 (fb). (Entered: 06/21/2014)
31 RESPONSE in Opposition re 29 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS, certificate of service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Text of Proposed Order, # 3 Certificate of Service)(EMMERICH, FRANK) Modified on 6/23/2014 (fb). (Entered: 06/22/2014)
32 REPLY in Support re 29 First MOTION to Quash Subpoenas filed by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (GROGG, ADAM) Modified on 6/24/2014 (lisad, ). (Entered: 06/23/2014)
33 ORDER THAT DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENAS IS GRANTED, AS OUTLINED HEREIN. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 6/23/2014.6/23/2014 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(md) (Entered: 06/23/2014)
34 Minute Entry for Oral Argument on Motion for Preliminary Injunction held on 6/24/14 before Judge Buckwalter. ESR/Court Reporter: Matthew J. Higgins. (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/24/2014)
35 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 10 of 14

06/25/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014 06/26/2014
06/26/2014
06/26/2014 06/27/2014
06/30/2014

CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. Certificate of Service (EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
36 Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. Certificate of Service (GROGG, ADAM) (Entered: 06/25/2014)
37 MEMORANDUM AND/OR OPINION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 6/26/14. 6/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
38 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUCTION IS DENIED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 6/26/14. 6/26/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 06/26/2014)
39 NOTICE OF APPEAL as to 38 Order (Memorandum and/or Opinion) by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. Copies to Judge, Clerk USCA, Appeals Clerk and Certificate of Service. (EMMERICH, FRANK) Modified on 6/27/2014 (nd, ). (Entered: 06/26/2014)
USCA Appeal Fees received $ 505.00 receipt number PPE103411 re 39 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. MONICA MANOR, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, IMMACULATE MARY HOME, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. MARY MANOR, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC. (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
40 Clerk's Notice to USCA re 39 Notice of Appeal. (mbh, ) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
NOTICE of Docketing Record on Appeal from USCA re 39 Notice of Appeal,,, filed by ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. MONICA MANOR, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, IMMACULATE MARY HOME, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. MARY MANOR, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC.. USCA Case Number 14−3126 (ems) (Entered: 06/27/2014)
41 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING,

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 11 of 14

06/30/2014
06/30/2014 07/23/2014 07/28/2014
09/25/2014 01/16/2015
01/21/2015 03/12/2015

DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certificate of Service)(EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 06/30/2014)
42 TRANSCRIPT of PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION HEARING of held on 6/24/14, before Judge BUCKWALTER. Court Reporter/Transcriber Matthew Higgins. Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.. Redaction Request due 7/21/2014. Redacted Transcript Deadline set for 7/31/2014. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 9/29/2014. (jaa, ) Modified on 7/1/2014 (jaa, ). (Entered: 07/01/2014)
43 Notice of Filing of Official Transcript with Certificate of Service re 42 Transcript − PDF, 7/1/14 Entered and Copies Emailed and Mailed.. (jaa, ) (Entered: 07/01/2014)
44 Joint MOTION to Stay District Court Proceedings Pending Appeal filed by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR.Certificate of Service. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(GROGG, ADAM) (Entered: 07/23/2014)
45 ORDER THAT THE PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO STAY DISTRICT COURT PROCEEDINGS PENDING APPEAL IS GRANTED AND THIS CASE IS STAYED PENDING THE THIRD CIRCUIT'S ADJUDICATION OF PLAINTIFFS' APPEAL OF THIS COURT'S DENIAL OF PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 7/28/14. 7/29/14 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 07/29/2014)
46 Certified Copy of Order from the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit re: vacate and remand to the District Court for reconsideration of its decision denying the preliminary injunction. (mbh, ) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
47 STIPULATION TO AMEND CAPTION AND STAY CASE (Joint) by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA. (EMMERICH, FRANK) (FILED IN ERROR, FORWARDED TO JUDGE FOR APPROVAL) (Entered: 01/16/2015)
48 JOINT STIPULATION AND ORDER THAT THE CLAIMS OF ST. MONICA MANOR, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, IMMACULATE MARY HOME, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. MARY MANOR AND ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME ARE DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 1/21/15. 1/22/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 01/22/2015)
49 MOTION for Extension of Time to File filed by CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Certification of Counsel, # 3 Text of Proposed Order, # 4 Certificate of Service)(EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 03/12/2015)

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 12 of 14

10/20/2015 01/06/2016 01/25/2016 01/25/2016 08/09/2016 08/23/2016
08/15/2017 11/30/2017 12/19/2017 12/19/2017 01/18/2018

50 ORDER THAT PLAINTIFFS' UNCONTESTED MOTION FOR EXTENSION IS GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED THAT THIS MATTER SHALL REMAIN STAYED UNTIL FURTHER CONSIDERATION AND ORDER OF THE COURT. SIGNED BY HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER ON 10/19/15. 10/21/15 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 10/21/2015)
51 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by JOSHUA VOSS on behalf of All Plaintiffs (VOSS, JOSHUA) (Entered: 01/06/2016)
52 ORDER THAT THIS CASE IS REASSIGNED FROM THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE RONALD L. BUCKWALTER TO THE CALENDAR OF THE HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY. SIGNED BY MICHAEL E. KUNZ, CLERK OF COURT ON 1/25/16. 1/25/16 ENTERED AND COPIES E−MAILED.(mbh, ) (Entered: 01/25/2016)
53 Certified Copy of Order from USCA for the Third Circuit re: vacated and remanded to the district court for reconsideration of their decision denying the preliminary injunction. (mbh, ) Modified on 1/27/2016 (mbh, ). (DUPLICATE COPY OF DOCKET ENTRY #46) (Entered: 01/26/2016)
54 ORDER that ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 23, 2016, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 8/9/2016. 8/9/2016 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 08/09/2016)
55 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. (EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 08/23/2016)
56 NOTICE of Withdrawal of Appearance by ADAM ANDERSON GROGG on behalf of JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR(GROGG, ADAM) (Entered: 08/15/2017)
57 ORDER that ON OR BEFORE DECEMBER 19, 2017, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER.−1(footnote). SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 11/29/2017. 11/30/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 11/30/2017)
58 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
59 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 58) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE JANUARY 19, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 12/19/2017. 12/19/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 12/19/2017)
60 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE)

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 13 of 14

01/23/2018 02/19/2018 02/21/2018 04/19/2018 04/19/2018 06/19/2018 06/21/2018 07/19/2018 07/23/2018 07/27/2018 08/16/2018

(Entered: 01/18/2018)
61 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 60) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE FEBRUARY 19, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGRDING THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER.SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 1/22/2018. 1/23/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 01/23/2018)
62 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 02/19/2018)
63 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 62) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE APRIL 19, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 2/21/2018. 2/21/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 02/21/2018)
64 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
65 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 64) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE JUNE 19, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 4/18/2018. 4/19/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF(mo, ) (Entered: 04/19/2018)
66 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 06/19/2018)
67 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 66) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE JULY 19, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 6/20/2018. 6/21/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 06/21/2018)
68 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by JACOB J. LEW, THOMAS E. PEREZ, KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. (BENNETT, MICHELLE) (Entered: 07/19/2018)
69 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 68) IT IS ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE JULY 27, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 7/23/2018. 7/23/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 07/23/2018)
70 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by IMMACULATE MARY HOME. (EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 07/27/2018)
71 ORDER − UPON CONSIDERATION OF THE JOINT STATUS REPORT (ECF NO. 70) IS IT ORDERED that ON OR BEFORE AUGUST 29, 2018, THE PARTIES MUST PROVIDE A JOINT STATUS REPORT TO THE COURT REGARDING

Case: 2:14-cv-03096-AB As of: 04/09/2019 01:59 PM EDT 14 of 14

08/24/2018

THE ABOVE−CAPTIONED MATTER.. SIGNED BY HONORABLE ANITA B. BRODY ON 8/15/2018. 8/16/2018 ENTERED AND COPIES VIA ECF.(mo, ) (Entered: 08/16/2018)
72 STIPULATION of Dismissal by IMMACULATE MARY HOME, CATHOLIC CHARITIES OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, CATHOLIC CLINICAL CONSULTANTS, CATHOLIC COMMUNITY SERVICES, INC., CATHOLIC HEALTH CARE SERVICES SUPPORTIVE INDEPENDENT LIVING, DIVINE PROVIDENCE VILLAGE, DON GUANELLA VILLAGE OF THE ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, NUTRITIONAL DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, INC., ROMAN CATHOLIC ARCHDIOCESE OF PHILADELPHIA, ST. EDMONDS HOME FOR CRIPPLED CHILDREN, ST. FRANCIS COUNTRY HOUSE, ST. JOHN NEUMANN NURSING HOME, ST. JOHN VIANNEY CENTER, ST. JOHN'S ORPHAN ASYLUM, ST. MARTHA NURSING HOME, ST. MARY MANOR, ST. MONICA MANOR, THE PHILADELPHIA PROTECTORY FOR BOYS. (EMMERICH, FRANK) (Entered: 08/24/2018)