CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 1 of 61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., PAUL ARCHAMBAULT, PATRICIA ARCHAMBAULT, and ROBERT ARCHAMBAULT,

Civil File No. ____________

Plaintiffs,

vs.

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and her successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

THOMAS PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor and his successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and his successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and

JOHN KOSKINEN, in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his successor; and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants.

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 2 of 61
Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief Plaintiffs Paul Archambault, Patricia Archambault, and Robert Archambault (“the Archambaults”) and their company, Stinson Electric, Inc. (“Company”), through their counsel, complain against the above-named Defendants (collectively “HHS”) as follows:
Introduction 1. In this action, the Archambaults and their privately held Company challenge certain regulations adopted under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“Affordable Care Act”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119. The regulations force certain religious persons who own and/or operate for-profit companies to include in their group health plans coverage for products and services that violate their religious beliefs under threat of substantial monetary fines and penalties. 2. Specifically, the Archambaults and their Company seek declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of the final rules promulgated by the HHS, mandating that all group health plans, inclusive of self-insured plans, include coverage, without cost sharing, for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (“the HHS Mandate”), see 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv), as
2

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 3 of 61
confirmed at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), adopting and quoting Health Resources and Services Administration Guidelines found at http://www.Health Resources Services.gov/womensguidelines.
3. Paul Archambault owns approximately 44% of the shares of the Company. Patricia Archambault owns approximately 45% of the Company. Robert P. Archambault owns 10% of the company. The Archambaults are Roman Catholic. They hold sincere religious beliefs based on the Roman Catholic Catechism which states “abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a ‘criminal’ practice” and which states “direct sterilization” and “contraception” are morally unacceptable. The Catechism also instructs that a person who deviates from its teachings is involved in a “public scandal.” As Catholic laypersons, the Archambaults must avoid public scandal.
4. The HHS Mandate to the Archambaults is sinful and immoral. Yet, the Mandate is coercing them and their Company to violate their religious beliefs and expose them or their Company or both to governmental imposition of substantial fines and penalties. As the deadline for the renewal of the Company’s group health plan arrives on May 1, 2014, the Archambaults, knowing that they have a religious obligation to provide for their employees through health care plans, must now confront the federal coercion imposed upon them and violate the HHS Mandate.
3

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 4 of 61
5. As it presently stands, the HHS Mandate violates the Archambaults’ constitutionally protected rights of freedom of speech, freedom of religion, due process and equal protection. The Mandate further violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedures Act. Injunctive relief will, in the first instance, allow the Archambaults and their Company to continue providing for their employees with group health insurance without an HHS Mandate, avoid public scandal, and free them and the Company from governmental constitutional burdens that interfere with their religious beliefs. The injunction will permit the Archambaults and the Company to operate their current and future businesses in a manner consistent with and not in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs. Likewise, if the Archambaults and the Company fail to provide health coverage to their employees, the Internal Revenue Service may impose significant penalties upon the employees. Similarly, without health insurance coverage, the government places the Archambaults and the Company in a difficult position by causing them to harm their employees who have relied upon the Company’s insurance benefits because the employees in turn may be exposed to possible significant IRS penalties as well.
6. HHS’ actions violate the Archambaults’ and the Company’s right to freely exercise their religion, which are protected by the First Amendment and the
4

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 5 of 61
Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (“RFRA”).
7. HHS’ actions in providing an exemption to religious non-profit employers, but not to for-profit business owners with the same religious objections, violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to United States Constitution.
8. HHS’ actions also violate the Archambaults’ and the Company’s rights to freedom of speech, which are protected by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. Further, HHS’ actions violated the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, by adopting and imposing the HHS Mandate without prior notice or public comment.
10. The Archambaults and Company are currently being impermissibly coerced by the HHS Mandate and its substantial fines and penalties to violate their religious beliefs.
11. The Archambaults and Company will continue to be harmed unless this Court provides them their requested injunctive relief from HHS’s illegal and unconstitutional actions. This injunctive relief must include barring the IRS and all agencies from the imposition of fines and penalties against the Company, the Archambaults, and their employees.
5

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 6 of 61
Jurisdiction and Venue 12. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1361 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and 5 U.S.C. § 702. This Court has jurisdiction to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 13. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e)(1) because the Plaintiffs reside within this district.
The Parties 14. Plaintiff Paul Archambault is an individual and a citizen of the State of Minnesota. He is an owner of the Company (44%) and is Vice-President of the Company. He is a member of the parish of St. Olaf in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and regularly attends religious services there. Within this parish he acts as a marriage preparation facilitator for engaged couples. Previously, Mr. Archambault was a member of St Charles Borromeo Church in St Anthony, Minnesota. Paul Archambault currently teaches religious education classes and was a lector for nearly 20 years and managed his parish lector program for nearly 10 years. Paul Archambault has been involved with PROLIFE Across AMERICA for over 20 years, vocally opposing abortion.
6

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 7 of 61
15. Plaintiff Patricia Archambault is an individual and a citizen of the State of Minnesota. She is an owner of the Company (45%) and is President of the Company. She is a member of the parish of St. Olaf in Minneapolis, Minnesota, and regularly attends religious services there. Within this parish she acts as a marriage preparation facilitator for engaged couples. Previously, she was a member of St. Charles Borromeo in St. Anthony, Minnesota. Patricia Archambault has been involved with PROLIFE Across AMERICA for over 20 years, vocally opposing abortion.
16. Plaintiff Stinson Electric, Inc. (“Company”) is a Minnesota corporation owned by the Archambaults. The Company’s registered office address is 2716 Pahl Avenue, St. Anthony, Minnesota 55418. The Company is privately held and owned solely by Paul and Patricia Archambault and their son Robert. The Company is an electrical services company that offers a broad range of services from repair and installation to design and consulting, in buildings designed for medical, retail, institutional, manufacturing, and commercial services.
17. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) is an agency of the United States. HHS is responsible for the administration and enforcement of the HHS Mandate.
7

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 8 of 61
18. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of Health and Human Services. As Secretary, she is responsible for the operation and management of the HHS. She is sued in her official capacity only.
19. Defendant United States Department of Labor is an agency of the United States government. The Department of Labor is responsible for administration and enforcement of the HHS Mandate.
20. Defendant Thomas Perez is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. As Secretary, he is responsible for the operation and management of the Department. He is sued in his official capacity only.
21. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States government. The Department of the Treasury is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
22. Defendant Jacob Lew in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Department of the Treasury is responsible for the operation and management of the United States Department of the Treasury. He is sued in his official capacity only.
23. Defendant Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States government. The IRS is responsible for operation, administration, and enforcement of the Affordable Care Act.
24. Defendant John Koskinen is Commissioner of Internal Revenue. As Commissioner, he is responsible for the operation and management of the Internal
8

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 9 of 61
Revenue Service. The Internal Revenue Service is responsible for operation, administration and enforcement of the ACA. He is sued in his official capacity only.
Factual Allegations The Archambaults hold sincere religious beliefs
which conflict with the HHS Mandate. 25. The Archambaults are Roman Catholic and hold sincere religious beliefs based on Catholic teaching. 26. The Archambaults, as owners and officers of the Company, are responsible for the Company’s day-to-day operations and overall well-being. The Company reflects the Archambaults’ business and personal belief philosophies. In addition, their positions and ownership in the Company are the source of support for their family.
Paul Archambault 27. Paul Archambault is a practicing, faithful, engaged Roman Catholic. He believes in the doctrine of the Catholic Church, with which he has become intimately familiar through personal study, practice, and catechesis. Mr. Archambault’s faith developed through his upbringing in a Catholic family, his formative education in Catholic schools, and his involvement in groups like Young Life and other Catholic youth groups and liturgy. Mr. Archambault’s religious views have deepened in his life through daily prayer, the study of Scripture, and
9

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 10 of 61
reading religious authors searching for ways to conform his life to the teachings of Jesus Christ and His Holy Catholic Church. Mr. Archambault married his wife, Patricia, in the Catholic Church, and has raised and educated his four children in the Catholic Church.
28. Paul Archambault considers himself an evangelist, reaching out with the Church’s message to his children, neighbors, and colleagues. Mr. Archambault also attends weekly Mass and Eucharistic adoration. Mr. Archambault considers it his daily mission to conduct regular acts of charity to both acquaintances and strangers. To that end and informed by his sincerely held religious beliefs, Mr. Archambault has also consistently cared for a friend from church who suffered a traumatic brain injury and has no family in Minnesota. Mr. Archambault and his wife, Patricia, also counsel engaged couples through their church. Mr. Archambault believes that he has been called to a quest for personal holiness and to affect the greater culture for Christ, which he accomplishes through evangelism, volunteering, and teaching by example, stewarding his personal talents and earthly goods for God’s purposes. Mr. Archambault considers himself personally responsible for the way in which he uses the time, talent, and treasure God has blessed him with.
29. Consequently, Paul Archambault sees his role as Vice-President of the Company as his personal vocation that requires from him a daily commitment to
10

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 11 of 61
excellently serve the Lord Jesus Christ according to the teachings of the Catechism. He asserts that the Company and his work thereat is an extension of his faith and personal life, and that his business philosophy, and the Company’s business philosophy, cannot be separated from his faith. The Company has thus hired its employees based on their moral character and fitness for the work that the Company does. While working as a leader of the Company, Mr. Archambault regularly offers thanksgiving prayers before meals with vendors, employees, and clients. Mr. Archambault, through the Company, cultivates relationships with Catholic and Christian organizations and aligns the Company with their mission, sometimes providing services for free or at discounts to support their efforts.
Patricia Archambault 30. Patricia Archambault is also a Roman Catholic. She was born and raised in a Catholic family and attended Catholic grade school and high school. Her faith surrounded her every day, strengthening what she believed. Mrs. Archambault believes that the Catholic Church offers a way to get to heaven, which is the goal of all people on earth. Mrs. Archambault believes that through the sacraments and the Holy Scriptures, people learn directly God’s Word and how to live good lives. Through the sacrament of the Mass, Mrs. Archambault believes that people can hear the Word of God and be fed at His table.
11

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 12 of 61
31. Every day, Patricia Archambault attempts to live her life according to the Beatitudes and in love for her neighbors. Within her church, Mrs. Archambault served as a Eucharistic minister for 2 years, was part of a Catholic study group for 12 years, and presently helps engaged couples prepare for marriage. She attends Mass each Sunday, and visits the adoration chapel nearly every day for personal prayer. Mrs. Archambault is also continually learning more about her faith by attending talks and reading Catholic and religious books. To Mrs. Archambault, exercising her religion means trying to lead others to God every day – it is inherently outward-looking and community-based, as opposed to merely inward and personal. Like her husband, Paul, Patricia Archambault believes that her business is an extension of her faith and must operate in the same manner as her personal life, according to God’s Word and His principles. To do otherwise would be a hypocritical contradiction of her religious beliefs.
Robert Archambault 32. Robert Archambault is also a Roman Catholic. He was raised in the Catholic faith, attended Catholic grade school, and completed his undergraduate college education at the University of Saint Thomas in St. Paul, Minnesota. He attends Mass each week at his parish, Maternity of Mary Church in Maplewood, Minnesota, where he sings in the church choir. Robert Archambault is also a sponsor in his parish’s Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults program, which
12

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 13 of 61
program seeks to educate adults about the Catholic faith and help adults who wish to convert to Catholicism. Robert Archambault is pro-life, believes that abortion and the use of abortifacients are immoral, and has actively supported pro-life causes.
Views on Abortion, Contraception, and Sterilization 33. As members of the Roman Catholic Church, the Archambaults adhere to the Catechism of the Catholic Church (“Catechism”) on abortion and contraception. See, e.g., Code of Canon Law § 757. The Archambaults came to believe what they believe through personal study and through significant learning in Catholic schools and frequent Mass. 34. The Catechism § 2322 states abortion is a criminal practice under religious law: 2322 From its conception, the child has the right to life. Direct abortion, that is, abortion willed as an end or as a means, is a "criminal" practice (GS 27 § 3), gravely contrary to the moral law. The Church imposes the canonical penalty of excommunication for this crime against human life. 35. The Catechism §§ 2367-2372, 2399 state that “direct sterilization and contraception” are “morally unacceptable” under Catholic religious law. 36. Thus, the Archambaults are required to adhere to the religious teaching that contraception and abortion are sinful and morally unacceptable under Catholic religious law and sincerely hold and exercise those beliefs.
13

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 14 of 61
37. The Archambaults are required to follow this religious teaching in
their lives, even if it relates to their Company and requires action through their
Company.
38. In fact, the Catholic Church considers it a “public scandal”, according
to its own meaning of the term, if the Archambaults were to materially deviate
from the Catechism in their lives. Catechism §§ 2284-2287.
39. Catechism § 2285 states:
Scandal takes on a particular gravity by reason of the authority of those who cause it or the weakness of those who are scandalized. It prompted our Lord to utter this curse: "Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened round his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea." Scandal is grave when given by those who by nature or office are obliged to teach and educate others. Jesus reproaches the scribes and Pharisees on this account: he likens them to wolves in sheep's clothing.
(Footnotes omitted).
40. Accordingly, the Archambaults, as Catholic laypersons, are very
careful to avoid public scandal.
41. Not only does the Catechism lead the Archambaults to support life by
opposing the murderous practices required by the HHS Mandate, but the
Archambaults each also hold personal convictions based on Scripture and Church
teaching that the practices forced upon them by the HHS Mandate are evil,
murderous, sinful, and immoral. 14

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 15 of 61
42. The Archambaults believe that abortion is a violation of the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not kill.”).
43. Paul Archambault also believes that the Sixth Commandment was given to man in order to protect others and as a direct admonition to would-be murderers that murder is inherently morally wrong and rips the fabric of the relationship between man and God and man and fellow man. By committing abortion, Mr. Archambault believes that a person rejects God’s providential love gifted to us by ending the creation of life. Mr. Archambault believes that this rejection of God’s providential love through abortion harms all parties to the event including the baby’s mother, father, siblings, friends, and abortion practitioners.
44. The Archambaults also believe that contraception like Plan B and ella is another form of abortion, and that any form of birth control that prevents a fertilized egg from attaching to the wall of the womb destroys a human life and is therefore murder. They believe that life begins at conception, and that destroying the embryo in any stage of development is the same as abortion and against God’s plan for humanity.
45. Furthermore, the Archambaults believe that voluntary sterilization is immoral because it interferes with God’s plan for us and his command in the Book of Genesis in the Bible to be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. The
15

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 16 of 61
Archambaults also base this view on the teachings of the Catholic Church against sterilization.
46. With respect to the Company, the Archambaults operate their Company in ways that adhere to and are not violative of the Catechism. The Archambaults and their Company strive to support life and avoid public scandal.
47. Paul Archambault, as a member of a parish, former lector, counselor to engaged couples seeking marriage, active participant in pro-life causes, and business owner, is very concerned about violating Catholic teaching and the public scandal which would accompany those violations.
48. Patricia Archambault, as a member of a parish, former Eucharistic minister, counselor to engaged couples seeking marriage, active participant in prolife causes, and business owner, is very concerned about violating Catholic teaching and the public scandal which would accompany those violations.
49. The Catechism also compels the Archambaults to provide for the physical health of their employees. Moreover, the Archambaults believe that the Catholic faith proposes that they ought to do the best they can for their employees and compensate them justly. They exercise their religious beliefs by offering group health plans for their employees consistent with the Catechism, in addition to providing life and disability insurance and paid personal time off and holidays –
16

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 17 of 61
all in the effort to compensate them justly as the Archambaults feel compelled to do by the teachings of the Church.
50. The HHS Mandate requires that the Company’s group health plan provide and pay for coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs, and related education and counseling. Among the products the HHS Mandate requires Company’s group plan to fund are Plan B (the “morning after pill”) and Ella (the “week after pill”),1 drugs that are designed to destroy early human life shortly after conception.
51. The Archambaults believe that paying for a group health plan that complies with the HHS Mandate is sinful and immoral because it requires the Archambaults, through their Company, to pay for contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling violating the Catechism and their religious beliefs.
52. The Archambaults desire to continue offering a group health plan to Company employees, but wish to exclude coverage for products and services that violate their religious beliefs, such as those required by the HHS Mandate.
53. HHS will not allow the Archambaults to exclude these Mandate coverages when the Company renews its group health plan.
1 FDA Office of Women’s Health, Birth Control Guide, available at www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications /UCM282014.pdf.
17

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 18 of 61
54. In short, the HHS Mandate will not permit the Archambaults to operate their business in accordance with the Catechism and their sincerely held religious beliefs.
55. In order for the Archambaults to avoid involvement in a public scandal, as defined by the Catechism and Code of Canon Law, and comply with their sincerely held religious beliefs, the Archambaults and their Company would have to obtain a group health plan that does not comply with the HHS Mandate. Thus, HHS is coercing the Archambaults and their Company to violate the HHS Mandate, exposing them and their Company to substantial fines and penalties. 26 U.S.C. § 4980D.
56. If the Archambaults and their Company must choose to exercise their religious beliefs by offering a group health plan that does not comply with the HHS Mandate, they subject themselves to substantial fines and penalties. 26 U.S.C. § 4980D.
57. The Company will not be compliant with the HHS Mandate when it chooses to discontinue a legally compliant group health plan, subjecting it to substantial fines and penalties, unless it receives relief from this Court.
58. The Archambaults’ and their Company’s decision to discontinue a legally compliant health plan because of the HHS Mandate will not be done willingly, but under the coercive pressure of the HHS Mandate and the public
18

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 19 of 61
scandal it would create for the Archambaults if they were to comply with the HHS Mandate.
59. The HHS has exempted certain non-profit employers from complying with the requirements of the HHS Mandate in an attempt to accommodate the religious beliefs of those employers, see 76 Fed. Reg. 46621, 46623 (issued on August 1, and published on August 3, 2011); 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq (published July 2, 2013). However, despite the same sincere religious objections, the Company does not, and can not, meet the HHS’s narrow qualifications for such an exemption.
The Company reflects the religious beliefs of its owners. 60. The Company currently employs approximately 16 full-time and parttime employees. Thus, the Company currently employs 49 or fewer full-time employees and full-time equivalents. 61. The Archambaults own 100% of the shares of the Company. The Archambaults either own or are employed by the Company. 62. The Archambaults, personally, and consistent with their membership in the Roman Catholic Church, strive to operate their Company in accordance with the religious, ethical, and moral teachings of the Catholic Church. 63. The Company currently has a group health plan.
19

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 20 of 61
64. According to HHS regulations, e.g., 77 Fed. Reg. at 8725 and 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq., the Company’s group health plan is subject to the HHS Mandate.
65. The Archambaults’ religious beliefs prohibit the Company from intentionally providing a group health plan that provides coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion and abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling. The Archambaults and the Company believe that providing for such things would be acting as an accomplice to sin, which is still a sin in and of itself. They also believe that it would be hypocritical to pay for such drugs and services when the Archambaults have been vocal and active opponents of abortion and the use of abortifacients for over 20 years. This worry is compounded by the fact that the Company is a closely held company, which means that its group health plan is paid out of profits that would otherwise be paid to the Archambaults as shareholders; thus, the Archambaults believe they and the Company would be directly paying for the items mandated by the HHS Mandate, against their religious beliefs.
66. The Archambaults are aware of the national controversy surrounding the HHS Mandate and the many lawsuits filed by Catholics and others around the country who own businesses and have the same religious objections to the HHS Mandate.
20

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 21 of 61
67. The HHS Mandate denies the Archambaults and Company of any choice to select a group health plan that does not cover and finance contraception, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.
68. As a result of the HHS Mandate, the Archambaults and the Company cannot offer a group health plan to its employees that accords with and does not violate the Archambaults’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
69. The Archambaults believe they have a moral and religious duty to provide the best they can for their employees, which, until the enactment of the HHS Mandate, they have accomplished by providing a group health plan for the Company employees; however, they cannot continue to do so without violating their religious beliefs because of the HHS Mandate.
70. If the Company provides a group health plan that does not comply with the HHS Mandate, the Company is subject to the imposition of substantial fines and penalties.
The ACA and the HHS Mandate 71. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), Pub. L. No. 111-148, 124 Stat. 119, enacted in March 2010, requires group health plans to provide women with “preventive care and screenings” at no charge to the patient. See 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4). 72. The ACA provides:
21

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 22 of 61
A group health plan and a health insurance issuer offering group or individual health insurance coverage shall, at a minimum provide coverage for and shall not impose any cost sharing requirements for… (4) with respect to women, such additional preventive care and screenings not described in paragraph (1) as provided for in comprehensive guidelines supported by the Health Resources and Services Administration for purposes of this paragraph.
Id.
73. In July, 2010, HHS issued regulations ordering HHS’s Health
Resources Services Administration (“Health Resources Services”) to develop
guidelines that would determine what preventative care and screenings would be
mandated under the ACA. See 75 Fed. Reg. 41728 (July 19, 2010).
74. Health Resources Services commissioned and funded a committee at
the Institute of Medicine to recommend which drugs, procedures, and services
should be covered by all health plans as preventive care for women. 75. The Institute of Medicine’s report2 to Health Resources Services
recommended that preventative care for women include “the full range of Food
and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization
procedures, and patient education and counseling for women with reproductive
capacity.” 2 INSTITUTE FOR MEDICINE, CLINICAL PREVENTIVE SERVICES FOR WOMEN: CLOSING THE GAPS (2011), available at http://cnsnews.com/sites/default/files/documents/PREVENTIVE%20SERV ICESINSTITUTE OF MEDICINE%20REPORT.pdf.
22

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 23 of 61
76. On August 1, 2011, without notice of rulemaking or opportunity for public comment, the Health Resources Services adopted the Institute of Medicine’s recommendations in full. See Health Resources and Services Administration, Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines, http://www.Health Resources Services.gov/womensguidelines (last visited Oct. 31, 2012) (“Health Resources Services Guidelines”).
77. Contemporaneously, HHS issued an “interim final rule” requiring “group health plan[s] and … health insurance issuer[s] offering group or individual insurance coverage [to] provide benefits for and prohibit the imposition of costsharing with respect to” the women’s preventive care and services included in the Health Resources Services Guidelines for plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012. 76 Fed. Reg. 46622, 46629 (issued on August 1, 2011 and published on August 3); 45 CFR 147.130(a)(1)(iv).
78. On February 15, 2012, HHS issued final regulations—the HHS Mandate—by adopting the August 1 interim final rule “without change.” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725-30 (Feb. 15, 2012).
79. On July 2, 2013, HHS finalized its regulations related to the exemptions for “religious employers” and nonprofit religious organizations which establish, maintain, or arrange health coverage. 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq. The final regulations became effective August 1, 2013. Id. However, the final
23

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 24 of 61
regulations did not affect the then-existing regulations governing “for-profit employers with religious objections to contraceptive coverage” because HHS specifically “decline[d] to adopt . . . suggestions” that would have made accommodations for these religious objectors. 78 Fed. Reg. 39874-75.
80. Among the Federal Drug Administration approved “contraceptive methods” that all group health plans must provide at no cost are Plan B (the “morning after pill”) and Ella (the “week after pill”),3 drugs that are designed to destroy early human life shortly after conception.
81. Plan B and Ella can prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus and can cause the death of an embryo. The use of artificial means to prevent the implantation of a human embryo in the wall of the uterus or to cause the death of an embryo each constitute an “abortion” as that term is used in federal law and Catholic teaching. Consequently, Plan B and Ella are abortifacients.
82. The ACA, under 26 U.S.C. § 4980H, requires employers with more than 50 full-time employees (or full-time employee equivalents) to provide federal government-approved health insurance coverage or pay substantial fines and penalties.
3 FDA Office of Women’s Health, Birth Control Guide, available at www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications /UCM282014.pdf.
24

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 25 of 61
83. Employers with fewer than 50 full-time employees must comply with the HHS Mandate, under threat of substantial fines, if they offer a group health plan because the Mandate applies to all non-exempt, non-grandfathered group health plans regardless of the employer’s size. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) (Mandate applies to all group health plans); 26 U.S.C § 4980D (imposing fines on “failure of a group health plan to meet the requirements” of the ACA).4
84. Moreover, the ACA and the HHS Mandate prevents all employers (and individuals) from selecting a group health plan that does not include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling because the ACA requires all “health insurance issuers offering group or individual health insurance coverage” to provide Mandate-compliant coverage. 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4).
85. Therefore, the Archambaults and Company cannot avoid the HHS Mandate by purchasing a group health plan that accommodates their conscience and religious beliefs because no such plan exists.
4 Although the Obama Administration claimed to push back the application of the requirement, under 26 U.S.C. § 4980H, that “large employers” offer group health care to their employees by one year, until 2015, this “push-back,” the constitutionality of which has been questioned, does not affect the penalties assessed under 26 U.S.C. § 4980D. See Mark J. Mazur, Treasury Notes, “Continuing to Implement the ACA in a Careful, Thoughtful Manner,” available at http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACAin-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx, July 2, 2013.
25

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 26 of 61
86. The HHS Mandate does not apply to preexisting group health plans that are considered “grandfathered.” 76 Fed. Reg. 46623 & n.4; see also 42 U.S.C. § 18011(a)(3-4) (specifying those provisions of the ACA that apply to grandfathered health plans).
87. To remain “grandfathered,” a group health plan must now and in the future comply with regulations issued by the HHS. See 42 U.S.C. § 18011(a)(2); 45 CFR § 147.140; 75 Fed. Reg. 34538, 34545 (June 17, 2010); see also HealthCare.gov, “What if I have a grandfathered health insurance plan?”, https://www.healthcare.gov/what-if-i-have-a-grandfathered-health-plan/ (last visited Mar. 19, 2014.
88. The ACA and the HHS Mandate do not apply equally to members of certain religious groups.
89. Individual “member[s] of a recognized religious sect or division thereof” who are “conscientiously opposed to acceptance of the benefits of any private or public insurance” are exempted from complying with certain provisions of the ACA. 26 U.S.C. §§ 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i), 1402(g)(1).
90. The HHS Mandate indicates that Heath Resources Services “may” exempt certain “religious employers” from complying with the HHS Mandate. 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(A); 76 Fed. Reg. at 46623; 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq.
26

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 27 of 61
91. The HHS has defined which employers are “religious” for purposes of this exemption. 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(B); 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq.
92. Health Resources Services may grant exemptions for “religious employers” that “meet[] all of the following criteria: (1) The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization. (2) The organization primarily employs persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (3) The organization serves primarily persons who share the religious tenets of the organization. (4) The organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(iv)(B)(1)-(4).
93. However, under amended guidelines issued July 2, 2013 and effective as of August 1, 2013, the HRSA states: “a religious employer is defined as an employer that is organized and operates as a non-profit entity and is referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code.” http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/; 78 Fed. Reg. 39870 et seq.5
94. The sections of the Internal Revenue Code referenced in the fourth criterion refer to “churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches” and “the exclusively religious activities of any religious 5 Although the CFR definition of “religious employer” itself has not been modified as of September 11, 2013, the Federal Register and the HRSA have announced this interpretation of “religious employer.” The change does not affect for-profit companies.
27

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 28 of 61
order,” that are exempt from taxation under 26 U.S.C. § 501(a). 26 U.S.C. § 6033(a)(1), (a)(3)(A)(i), (a)(3)(A)(iii).
95. The HHS Mandate does not place limits on Health Resource Services’ discretion to establish an exemption for “religious employers,” or to grant such exemptions to organizations meeting the Defendants’ definition of “religious employer.”
96. The HHS Mandate contains no exemptions for for-profit organizations, such as plaintiff Company, even when those organizations have a sincere religious objection to the HHS Mandate’s requirement that their group health plans provide coverage, at no cost, for contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.
97. The HHS stated that it based the exemption for “religious employers” on comments and feedback received on the July 19, 2010 interim final rule, see 76 Fed. Reg. at 46623, the August 1, 2011 amendments to the interim final rule, see 77 Fed. Reg. at 8726, and in amended guidelines adopted July 2, 2013 and effective August 1, 2013, see 78 Fed. Reg. 39874 and http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/.
98. The HHS stated they received over 200,000 responses to the request for comments to the August 1, 2011 amendments to the interim final rule. 77 Fed. Reg. at 8726.
28

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 29 of 61
99. Through these comments, the HHS was made aware of numerous objections to the HHS Mandate, including, but not limited to, the following:
• “the religious employer exemption is too narrow”;
• “the definition of religious employer [should] be broadened so that more sponsors of group health plans would qualify for the exemption”;
• “the exemption for religious employers will not allow them to continue their current exclusion of contraceptive services from coverage under their group health plans”;
• that for certain employers to “pay for [contraceptive] services…would be contrary to their religious beliefs”; and
• “if the definition of religious employer is not broadened, [employers] could cease to offer health coverage to their employees in order to avoid having to offer coverage to which they object on religious grounds.”
77 Fed. Reg. at 8726-27.
100. Despite these, and other, known religious objections, the HHS did not expand the narrow exemption for organizations defined as “religious employers,” but finalized the interim final rule “without change.” 77 Fed. Reg. at 8730.
101. With full knowledge of the aforementioned objections, the HHS issued the HHS Mandate, which substantially burdens the religious exercise of the Archambaults, Company, and millions of other Americans.
102. Because the HHS Mandate arbitrarily exempts certain plans and
employers for a variety of secular reasons, but does not exempt similar plans and
29

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 30 of 61
employers for religious reasons, the HHS Mandate impermissibly targets religious
conduct.
103. The HHS Mandate was adopted without giving due weight to the tens
of thousands of public comments submitted to HHS in opposition to the HHS
Mandate.
104. The HHS Mandate forces the Archambaults and the Company and
others to adopt and endorse the HHS’ moral view of contraception, sterilization,
abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.
105. On February 10, 2012, HHS issued a document entitled “Guidance on
the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor for Certain Employers, Group Health
Plans and Group Health Insurance Issuers with Respect to the Requirement to
Cover Contraceptive Services Without Cost Sharing Under Section 2713 of the
Public Health Service Act, Section 715(a)(1) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, and Section 9815(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code” (“Guidance”),6 which established a “temporary enforcement safe harbor.”7
6 HHS, Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor, http://cciio.cms.gov/resources /files/Files2/02102012/20120210-Preventive-Services-Bulletin.pdf (last visited Oct. 31, 2012). 7 On August 15, 2012, Defendants issued a revised Guidance, clarifying certain criteria with respect to the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor. HHS, Revised Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor at 1 n.1, http://cciio.cms.gov/resources/files/prev-services-guidance-08152012.pdf (last visited Oct. 16, 2012).
30

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 31 of 61
106. On June 28, 2013, HHS updated the February 10, 2012 publication to
“extend[] the temporary enforcement safe harbor to encompass plan years
beginning on or after August 1, 2013 (the prior expiration date of the safe harbor),
and before January 1, 2014 (the applicability date of final regulations establishing
accommodations for group health plans established or maintained by eligible
organizations . . . with respect to the contraceptive coverage requirement).”8
107. Under the “Guidance,”
until the first plan year that begins on or after January 1, 2014[,] . . . [n]either employers, nor group health plans, nor group health insurance issuers will be subject to any enforcement action by the Departments for failing to cover some or all of the recommended contraceptive services without cost sharing in non-grandfathered group health plans established or maintained by an organization . . . meeting all of the following criteria:
1. The organization is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity.
2. From February 10, 2012 onward, the health plan established or maintained or arranged by the organization has consistently not provided all or the same subset of the contraceptive coverage otherwise required, at any point, consistent with any applicable State law, because of the religious beliefs of the organization.
3. As detailed below, the health plan established or maintained or arranged by the organization (or another
8 HHS, Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor . . . , http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-andGuidance/Downloads/preventive-services-guidance-6-28-2013.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2014).
31

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 32 of 61
entity on behalf of the plan, such as a health insurance issuer or third-party administrator) must provide to plan enrollees the attached notice, as described below, which states that some or all contraceptive coverage will not be provided under the plan during the temporary enforcement safe harbor period.
4. The organization self-certifies that it satisfies criteria 1-3 above, and documents its self-certification in accordance with the procedures detailed herein.
With respect to the second criterion above, the following exception applies. A health plan will be considered not to have provided all or the same subset of the contraceptive coverage otherwise required if it took some action to try to exclude or limit such coverage that was not successful as of February 10, 2012. Accordingly, such coverage will not disqualify an employer, a group health plan, or a group health insurance issuer from eligibility for the safe harbor. To qualify, the organization must certify that it (or its plan or its issuer) took some action before February 10, 2012, to try to exclude from coverage under the plan some or all contraceptive services because of the religious beliefs of the organization, but that, subsequently, such contraceptive services were covered under the plan despite such action. Section IV describes the specifications for the certification.
Any employer that potentially qualifies for the religious employer exemption may, if eligible, opt to invoke the temporary enforcement safe harbor. Doing so would not preclude the employer from later invoking the exemption, if eligible.
HHS, Guidance on the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor, HHS, Guidance on
the Temporary Enforcement Safe Harbor . . . ,
http://www.cms.gov/CCIIO/Resources/Regulations-and-
32

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 33 of 61
Guidance/Downloads/preventive-services-guidance-6-28-2013.pdf (last visited Mar. 19, 2014).
108. On March 21, 2012, the HHS issued an Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (“Advanced Notice”) stating their intentions to propose certain amendments to the Mandate. 77 Fed. Reg. 16501 (March 21, 2012).
109. In the Advanced Notice, the HHS stated an intention to “accommodate” some religious non-profit employers not defined as “religious employers” by HHS by requiring compliance with the mandate by means of requiring those employers’ insurers to offer the employer’s employees the coverage required by the HHS Mandate at no cost. See 77 Fed. Reg. at 16503.
110. The Advanced Notice is neither a rule, a proposed rule, nor the specification of what a rule proposed in the future would actually contain. It in no way changes or alters the final status of the HHS Mandate. It does not even create a legal requirement that HHS change the HHS Mandate at some time in the future.
111. On February 6, 2013, the Departments of HHS, Treasury, and Labor proposed to eliminate the first three prongs of the test for what constitutes a “religious employer” as described in paragraph 92, supra. 78 Fed. Reg. 8461.
112. On July 2, 2013, HHS finalized without change the proposed regulations described supra, so that, as of August 1, 2013, the definition of “religious employer” had become only the fourth prong of the prior test: “The
33

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 34 of 61
organization is a nonprofit organization as described in section 6033(a)(1) and section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.” 78 Fed. Reg. 39874; see also http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/. However, HHS specifically “decline[d] to adopt . . . suggestions” that would have made accommodations for for-profit companies and their owners with religious objections to the HHS Mandate. 78 Fed. Reg. 39874-75. In other words, for-profit employers with religious objections remain subject to the HHS Mandate’s contraception coverage requirements. See id. and paragraphs 92-93, supra.
113. The ACA creates a system of individualized exemptions. 114. The ACA grants HHS the authority to grant compliance waivers, which exempt certain entities from complying with certain provisions of the ACA, including the requirement that employers provide health care coverage. 115. Employers who are exempt from providing health care coverage are exempt from complying with the HHS Mandate. 116. Upon information and belief, HHS has granted over 1,000 compliance waivers. 117. HHS has granted compliance waivers to for-profit businesses, unions, and other organizations for purely secular reasons, but has not exempted Company despite the Archambaults’ sincere religious objections.
34

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 35 of 61
118. The ACA is not generally applicable because it provides numerous exemptions from its rules and applicability.
119. The ACA is not neutral because some organizations and individuals, both secular and religious, are exempt from complying with certain provisions it, including the HHS Mandate.
120. The ACA is not neutral because some organizations and individuals, both secular and religious, have been granted compliance waivers, exempting them from complying with certain provisions of it, including the HHS Mandate.
The Archmabaults, their Company and the HHS Mandate 121. The HHS Mandate applied to the Company’s first group health plan year after August 1, 2012. 122. The plan year for the Company’s current group health plan is through May 1, 2014. 123. The HHS Mandate applies to any group health plan provided by the Company. 124. The Company does not qualify for any of the exemptions to the ACA. 125. The Company does not qualify for an individual exemption under 26 U.S.C. § 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i) and (ii) as the Company does not object to acceptance of public or private insurance funds in their totality -- a requirement for the exemption.
35

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 36 of 61
126. The Company’s current group health plan also does not qualify as a “grandfathered” group health plan.
127. Specifically, the Company’s current group health plan does not qualify as a “grandfathered” group health plan because, upon information and belief, HealthPartners, the insurer for the Company’s group health plan, along with all the other Minnesota group health insurance carriers, decided not to keep their small group plans—a form of which the Company offers to its employees— grandfathered. Upon information and belief, HealthPartners made significant enough plan changes to the Company’s small group plan that resulted in loss of grandfathered status.
128. Even if this were not so, the Company could not qualify for grandfather status because the Company did not provide the required notification, see 45 CFR § 147.140(a)(2)(i)-(ii), to plan participants that its plan was considered grandfathered (because the plan was not considered grandfathered).
129. The Company does not qualify as exempt “religious employers” under 45 CFR § 147.130(a)(1)(iv)(A)-(B) or under the guidelines set forth by the HRSA and effective August 1, 2013, available at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines/.
130. The Company is not “religious” enough under the HHS’s definition of “religious employer” in several respects because, including but not limited to, the Company has purposes other than the “inculcation of religious values,” it does not
36

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 37 of 61
primarily hire and serve Catholics, and because the Archambaults’ current businesses are not churches, integrated auxiliaries of particular churches, convention, or association of churches, or the exclusively religious activities of a religious order.
131. Because the Company does not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption, it is not permitted to take advantage of the “temporary enforcement safe-harbor” as set forth by the Defendants at 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, the contemporaneously-issued Guidance, and the updated Guidance quoted herein.
132. The HHS Mandate requires that the Company finance coverage for and facilitate access to contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling against the Plaintiffs’ conscience and in violation of their religious beliefs, in a manner that is contrary to law.
133. The HHS Mandate constitutes government-imposed coercion on the Archambaults and Company to change or violate the Archambaults’ sincerely held religious beliefs.
134. The HHS Mandate exposes the Company and the Archambaults to the imposition of substantial fines and penalties for refusing to change or violate their religious beliefs.
37

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 38 of 61
135. Pursuant to the HHS Mandate, all insurance issuers must provide coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion and abortifacient drugs and related counseling services in all group health plans as of August 1, 2012.
136. HHS has deprived the Archambaults and the Company of any choice to select a group health plan that excludes coverage for these drugs, devices, and services.
137. The Archambaults and the Company are forced to select and pay for a group health plan that includes the HHS Mandate-compliant coverage in violation of their religious beliefs.
Protecting employees is also a sincere religiously based belief and the offer of health insurance meets that obligation. 138. The HHS Mandate will prevent the Archambaults from exercising their religiously held duty to provide for the health and welfare of their current and future employees by providing them a group health plan without the objectionable HHS-Mandate-compliant coverage. 139. The Archambaults have a sincere conscientious religious objection to funding coverage for and facilitating access to contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling. 140. The HHS Mandate directly punishes, with substantial fines and penalties, the Archambaults’ exercise of their religious beliefs.
38

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 39 of 61
141. The HHS Mandate imposes substantial burdens on the Archambaults’ exercise of their sincerely-held religious beliefs through the Company.
The Plaintiffs are exposed to substantial tax penalties and interest. 142. The Defendant IRS is the responsible governmental agency for the application and enforcement of fines or monetary tax penalties through IRS rules and regulations. Failure to abide by those rules and regulations will result in substantial penalties for both employers and employees. 143. Violations of the Affordable Care Act coverage mandates are subject to tax under Internal Revenue Code section 4980D and the employer must pay an excise tax of $100 per day during the noncompliance period with respect to each individual to whom the violation relates. This tax must be self-reported annually to the Internal Revenue Service on Form 8928 under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code no later than the deadline for the filing of the entity’s federal income tax return. Payment of the excise tax is due upon the filing of Form 8928. 144. Interest is charged on taxes not paid by the due date even if an extension of time to file is granted regarding Form 8928. The interest rate is determined under Internal Revenue Code § 6621. There is a penalty for a late filing of the Form 8928 return, including extensions. The payment may include a penalty of up to 5% of the unpaid tax for each month or part of the month the unpaid tax return is late, up to a maximum of 25% of the unpaid tax. Failure to pay any excise
39

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 40 of 61
tax with the filing of Form 8928 will also result in an additional penalty of ½ of 1% of the unpaid tax for each month or part of a month the tax is not paid, up to a maximum of 25% of the unpaid tax.
145. The implementation of the self-reporting obligation of the excise tax began for health insurance plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2010. The Company’s group health insurance plan renewal period will begin on May 1, 2014. The Archambaults and the Company will have to file Form 8928, return of certain excise taxes under Chapter 43 of the Internal Revenue Code, when they fail to meet the requirements under section 4980D.
146. In addition, under section 4980H of the Affordable Care Act, large employers, who employ 50 or more full-time employees, including full-time equivalents, may be subject to a penalty if they do not offer health coverage, or if they offer coverage, that is unaffordable or does not provide minimum value.
147. Under section 4980H(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, if an employer fails to offer health coverage to its full-time employees and their dependents, and at least one full-time employee obtains subsidized coverage in a state health insurance Exchange, the 4980H(a) annual tax penalty is $2,000 times the total number of full-time employees employed by the employer. For purposes of calculating the 4980H(a) penalty, the number of full-time employees is reduced by 30.
40

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 41 of 61
148. The State of Minnesota has an American Health Benefit Exchange as one avenue individuals may purchase insured coverage. (See, ACA § 1311(b)). Individual health insurance coverage is also available outside of the Exchange depending upon the individual’s determination of what is the best value for him or her.
149. The Archambaults and the Company employ Minnesota residents. At least one employee, upon information and belief, will seek insurance through the Minnesota Exchange if the Archambaults drop their group health insurance coverage as a result of the HHS Mandate.
150. Under the present proposed rules and regulations, the Company does not employ 50 or more full-time employees, and is not considered a large employer under 26 U.S.C. § 4890H. However, there exists the possibility that the Company could employ over 50 employees for ACA counting purposes at some point in the near future, which would subject them to substantial tax penalties if they fail to meet certain requirements for health insurance coverage to their employees.
151. Likewise, individuals such as the Archambaults and the Company’s employees who fail to obtain compliant health insurance will be subject to substantial IRS tax penalties collectable through the withholding of federal tax refunds.
41

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 42 of 61
152. The Archambaults and the Company, based on their religious beliefs, consider it a moral obligation to offer their employees the benefit of health insurance to protect their employees’ well-being and that of their family members.
153. The Archambaults and the Company’s employees have and continue to rely upon offered health insurance to protect themselves and family members.
154. The Affordable Care Act is coercing the Archambaults and the Company to forego their religious beliefs and refuse to offer health insurance to employees. As a consequence, the Archambaults and the Company will face substantial tax penalties as imposed through the Defendant IRS.
155. The Archambaults and the Company bring this action to enjoin HHS’s violations of the Archambaults’ and the Company’s statutory and constitutional rights and to permit the Archambaults and the Company to operate their current and future businesses in a manner consistent with and not in violation of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.
156. The Archambaults and Company have no adequate remedy at law. Claims for Relief COUNT I
Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb
157. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
42

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 43 of 61
158. The Archambaults’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them, through the Company, from purchasing or providing coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling in Company’s group health plan.
159. The Archambaults, as members of the Catholic Church, adhere to Catholic teachings with regard to contraception, sterilization, abortion, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling. They exercise religion with respect to those teachings within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb (“RFRA”).
160. The HHS Mandate coerces the Archambaults to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring the Company to provide group health plans compliant with the HHS Mandate or be charged with substantial fines and penalties.
161. According to Roman Catholic religious law, it would be public scandal for the Archambaults to knowingly continue owning a business that provides health care coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.
162. The HHS Mandate coerces the Archambaults through the Company to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
43

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 44 of 61
163. The HHS Mandate forces the Archambaults to choose between violating their religious exercise by complying with the HHS Mandate or paying substantial fines and penalties for not complying with the HHS Mandate.
164. The HHS Mandate imposes a substantial burden on the Archambaults’ and the Company’s exercise of religion.
165. The HHS Mandate furthers no compelling government interest. 166. The HHS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any compelling government interest. 167. The HHS Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ alleged interests. 168. The HHS Mandate, as implemented, is facially invalid under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 169. The HHS Mandate, as implemented, is invalid as applied under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 170. Because of the direct harm the HHS Mandate imposes upon the Archambaults and the Company in violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent governmental intrusion and punishment of the Plaintiffs for exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs.
44

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 45 of 61
COUNT II Violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 171. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 172. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution protects the free exercise of religion. 173. The Archambaults’ sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from purchasing or providing coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling in the Company’s employee group health plan. 174. When the Archambaults adhere to Catholic teaching with regard to contraception, sterilization, abortion, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling, they are exercising religion within the meaning of the Free Exercise of the First Amendment. 175. The HHS Mandate is not neutral and is not generally applicable. 176. HHS has created categorical and individualized exemptions to the HHS Mandate. 177. The HHS Mandate coerces the Archambaults and the Company to change or violate sincerely held religious beliefs.
45

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 46 of 61
178. The HHS Mandate coerces the Archambaults to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by requiring the Company to purchase group health plans compliant with the HHS Mandate or be charged with substantial fines and penalties.
179. The HHS Mandate prevents the Archambaults’ and the Company’s religious exercise.
180. According to Roman Catholic religious law, it would be public scandal for the Archambaults to knowingly continue owning a business that provides health care coverage for contraception, sterilization, abortion, abortifacient drugs and related education and counseling.
181. The HHS Mandate imposes a substantial burden on the Archambaults’ and the Company’s exercise of their religion.
182. The HHS Mandate is designed to apply to some religious American citizens but not to others, which results in discrimination among religions.
183. The HHS Mandate permits Health Resources Services unlimited discretion to decide to exempt some, all, or no organizations meeting the HHS’s definition of “religious employers.”
184. HHS has created exemptions to the HHS Mandate for some religious believers but not others based on characteristics of their beliefs, the types of organizations, and the manner in which they exercise those beliefs.
46

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 47 of 61
185. Despite having prior detailed knowledge of the kind of religious objections contained in this complaint, HHS designed the HHS Mandate and the religious exemption to the HHS Mandate in a way that made it impossible for the Archambaults, through their Company and others similarly situated, to comply with their religious beliefs.
186. HHS promulgated both the HHS Mandate and the religious exemptions thereto with the purpose and intent to suppress the religious exercise of owners of for-profit companies like the Plaintiffs.
187. The HHS Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest. 188. The HHS Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering HHS’ alleged interests. 189. As a result of HHS’ violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as described above, the HHS Mandate is facially invalid. 190. As a result of HHS’ violations of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause as described above, the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied. 191. The HHS Mandate violates the Archambaults’ and the Company’s rights secured to them by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of the direct harm the HHS Mandate imposes upon the Archambaults and the Company in violation of their constitutional right to freedom of religion, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent
47

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 48 of 61
governmental intrusion and punishment of the Plaintiffs for exercising their sincerely held religious beliefs as protected under the First Amendment.
COUNT III Violation of the Establishment Clause of
the United States Constitution 192. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 193. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of any religion as well as excessive government entanglement with religion. 194. The Establishment Clause requires government neutrality in matters of religion and in matters of religious organization. 195. The HHS Mandate discriminates among religious organizations, favoring some over others, and exhibits hostility to religious beliefs. 196. The HHS Mandate establishes which individuals and entities are “sufficiently religious” to warrant exemption from the requirements of the ACA and the HHS Mandate. 197. Owners of for-profit companies, no matter how religious, are not included in the exemption from the requirements of the ACA and the HHS Mandate.
48

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 49 of 61
198. The exemptions from the HHS Mandate do exclude Bishops and their church organizations, but do not exclude lay people who own for-profit businesses and have the same religious objections to the HHS Mandate as the Bishops and their church organizations.
199. Thus, the exemption from the HHS Mandate unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of the Bishop (the Shepherd) and against the lay people (the Flock), despite the fact that Catholic laypeople are to follow Church teaching like the clergy does.
200. Additionally, by enforcing the HHS Mandate, HHS adopts a particular theological view of what is acceptable moral complicity in provision of abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilization coverage and imposes it upon all religionists who must either conform their consciences or suffer fines and penalties.
201. The government’s use of the political tactic of dividing the Shepherd from the Flock is a violation of the Establishment Clause’s neutrality requirement. In using this political tactic, the government is unconstitutionally favoring religious objectors who are Bishops or those who are organized as church organizations over religious objectors who are individuals who own for-profit businesses.
202. As a result of the HHS violations under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as described above, the HHS Mandate is facially invalid.
49

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 50 of 61
203. As a result of the HHS violations under the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause as described above, the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied.
204. The HHS Mandate violates the Archambaults’ and the Company’s rights secured to them by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of the direct harm the HHS Mandate imposes upon the Archambaults and the Company in violation of their constitutional rights of due process, equal protection and neutrality, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent governmental intrusion of the Plaintiffs protected constitutional rights.
COUNT IV Violation of the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution 205. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 206. The Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution has an explicit requirement that the federal government not deprive individuals of "life, liberty, or property" without due process of the law and an implicit guarantee that each person receive equal protection of the laws. 207. The Fifth Amendment requires government neutrality in matters of religion and in matters of religious organization. 208. The HHS Mandate discriminates among religious organizations, favoring some over others, and exhibits hostility to religious beliefs.
50

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 51 of 61
209. The HHS Mandate establishes which individuals and entities are sufficiently religious to warrant exemption from the requirements of the ACA and the HHS Mandate.
210. Owners of for-profit companies, no matter how religious, are not included in the exemption from the requirements of the ACA and the HHS Mandate.
211. The exemptions from the HHS Mandate do exclude Bishops and their church organizations, but do not exclude lay people who own for-profit businesses and have the same religious objections to the HHS Mandate and the same faith.
212. Thus, the exemption from the HHS Mandate unconstitutionally discriminates in favor of the Bishop (the Shepherd) and against the lay people (the Flock), despite the fact that Catholic laypeople are to follow Church teaching like the clergy does.
213. The government’s use of the political tactic of dividing the Shepherd from the Flock is a violation of the Fifth Amendment’s due process, equal protection and neutrality requirements. The HHS Mandate’s exemption does not treat each similarly situated religious objector equally under the law. In using this political tactic, the government is unconstitutionally favoring religious objectors who are Bishops or organized as church organizations over religious objectors who are individuals who own for-profit businesses.
51

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 52 of 61
214. As a result of the HHS violations under the Fifth Amendment as described above, the HHS Mandate is facially invalid.
215. As a result of the HHS violations under the Fifth Amendment as described above, the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied.
216. The HHS Mandate violates the Archambaults’ and the Company’s rights secured to them by the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of the direct harm the HHS Mandate imposes upon the Archambaults and the Company in violation of their constitutional right of due process and equal protection, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent governmental intrusion of the Plaintiffs protected constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment.
COUNT V Violation of the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution 217. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein. 218. A business’ conduct and speech relating to the provision of employee health insurance is “speech” protected by the Free Speech Clause. 219. The HHS Mandate’s requirement that all group health plans provide coverage for education and counsel related to contraceptives, sterilization, and abortifacient drugs forces the Archambaults, through the Company, to subsidize
52

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 53 of 61
speech and expressive conduct that is directly contrary to the Archambaults’ and the Company’s religious beliefs.
220. The HHS Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest. 221. The HHS Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest. 222. As a result of the HHS violations under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as described above, the HHS Mandate is facially invalid. 223. As a result of the HHS violations under the First Amendment’s protection of free speech as described above, the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied. 224. The HHS Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. Because of the direct harm the HHS Mandate imposes upon the Archambaults and the Company in violation of their constitutional right of free speech, immediate injunctive relief is necessary to prevent governmental intrusion of the Plaintiffs protected constitutional rights under the First Amendment.
COUNT VI Violation of the Administrative Procedures Act 225. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding paragraphs of this complaint as though fully set forth herein.
53

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 54 of 61
226. Because HHS did not give proper notice and an opportunity for public comment when they promulgated the “preventive care” guidelines, HHS did not take into account the full implications of the regulations by completing a meaningful consideration of the relevant matter presented.
227. HHS did not consider or respond to the voluminous comments they received in opposition to the August 1, 2012 interim final rule.
228. HHS did not consider or respond to the voluminous comments they received in opposition to the proposed final regulations adopted on July 2, 2013.
229. Therefore, HHS have taken agency action not in accordance with procedures required by law, and the Archambaults and the Company are entitled to relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
230. In promulgating the HHS Mandate, HHS failed to consider the constitutional and statutory implications of the HHS Mandate on the Archambaults and the Company and similar persons.
231. HHS’s decision to not exempt the Company and similar organizations is contrary to the evidence submitted during the comment period.
232. HHS’s issuance of the HHS Mandate was thus arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) because HHS failed to consider the full extent of the HHS Mandate’s implications and they did not take into consideration the evidence against it.
54

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 55 of 61
233. The HHS Mandate is also contrary to existing law and is thus in violation of the APA under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A).
234. As a result of the HHS violations under the APA as described above, the HHS Mandate is facially invalid.
235. As a result of the HHS violations under the APA as described above, the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied.
236. As a result of HHS violating the APA, the Plaintiffs have been directly harmed with the government’s intrusive efforts to violate protections afforded to the Archambaults and the Company under the federal Constitution and under RFRA.
Jury Trial Demanded 237. Plaintiffs demand on any issue triable of right by a jury, a jury trial as protected under the United States Constitution, amend. VII, and as provided under Rule 38 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Prayer for Relief WHEREFORE, the above-named Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief: 1. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate, which requires employee health insurance coverage for, “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration [(FDA)] approved contraceptive methods, sterilization
55

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 56 of 61
procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (“the HHS Mandate”), see 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv), and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); 2. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; 3. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; 4. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violate the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution; 5. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violate the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution; 6. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate and its application to the Company and the Archambaults violate the Administrative Procedures Act;
56

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 57 of 61
7. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate is facially invalid because it violates the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Administrative Procedures Act;
8. Enter a declaratory judgment that the HHS Mandate is invalid as applied because it violates the United States Constitution, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the Administrative Procedures Act;
9. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Defendants Kathleen Sebelius as U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and the United States Department of Health and Human Services; Thomas Perez as U.S. Secretary of Labor and the United States Department of Labor; Jacob Lew as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and the United States Department of the Treasury; and John Koskinen as Commissioner of Internal Revenue and the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the HHS Mandate against the Company and the Archambaults;
10.Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from the application and/or enforcement of IRS rules or regulations that would result in imposing tax penalties against the Company and the Archambaults, including but not limited to, the requiring filing of Form 8980 regarding the return of certain excise taxes under Chapter 43 of
57

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 58 of 61
the Internal Revenue Code (or similar form) and the payment of any excise tax or interest penalty; 11.Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from the application and/or enforcement of IRS rules or regulations that would result in any other type of tax penalty, including interest, against the Company and the Archambaults; 12.Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction prohibiting the Internal Revenue Service from the application and/or enforcement of IRS rules or regulations that would result in imposing penalties against any of the Company’s and the Archambaults’ employees; 13.Enter a declaratory judgment that an insurance issuer or administrator that offers a group health plan to Company excluding the coverage required by the HHS Mandate does not violate the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or the HHS Mandate; 14.Award the Company and the Archambaults costs and reasonable attorney fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and
58

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 59 of 61
15. Award such other relief as the court deems just.

Dated: March 26, 2014.

MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A.
/s/James V. F. Dickey Erick G. Kaardal (Minn. 229647) Vincent J. Fahnlander (Minn. 19220X) James V. F. Dickey (Minn. 393613) 33 South Sixth Street, Suite 4100 Minneapolis Minnesota 55402 Telephone: (612) 341-1074 Facsimile: (612) 341-1076 dickey@mklaw.com
Counsel for Plaintiffs

59

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 60 of 61

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 1 Filed 03/26/14 Page 61 of 61

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 14 Filed 04/30/14 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., PAUL ARCHAMBAULT, PATRICIA ARCHAMBAULT, and ROBERT ARCHAMBAULT,

Civil File No. 14-CV-00830 PJS/JJG

Plaintiffs,

PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

vs

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and her successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES;

SETH D. HARRIS, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor and his successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR;

JACOB LEW, in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and his successor; and the UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, and

DANIEL I. WERFEL, in this official capacity as Acting Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his successor; and the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE,

Defendants.

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 14 Filed 04/30/14 Page 2 of 4
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION Plaintiffs Stinson Electric, Inc., Paul Archambault, Patricia Archambault, and Robert Archambault have filed a motion for preliminary injunction and stay in the abovereferenced case. [ECF 5.] The Plaintiffs have filed a Local Rule 7.1 meet-and-confer statement indicating an agreement between the parties on the Plaintiffs’ proposed order. [ECF 7.] Defendants have filed a document indicating the same. [ECF 13.] Based on these filings, Defendants are preliminarily enjoined until thirty days after the mandate issues from the Eighth Circuit in O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 12-3357, or Annex Medical, Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 13-1118, or until thirty days after the Supreme Court issues its mandate in Kathleen Sebelius, et al., v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., No. 13-354, and Conestoga Wood Specialty Corporation, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No. 13-356, whichever occurs first, from enforcing the contraceptive coverage requirement under 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) and its implementing regulations1 against Plaintiffs, its employees or any health insurance issuer when offering any group health insurance coverage to Stinson Electric, Inc. without coverage for “All Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” as prescribed by a health care provider. See HRSA, Women’s Preventive Services: Required Health Plan Coverage Guidelines, available at
1 75 Fed. Reg. 41,726, 41,728 (July 19, 2010) (interim final rules with request for comments); 76 Fed. Reg. 46,621, 46,621-26 (Aug. 3, 2011) (interim final rules with request for comments); 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, 8725-30 (Feb. 15, 2012) (final rules).
2

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 14 Filed 04/30/14 Page 3 of 4
http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines (August 1, 2011), attached as Exhibit A hereto.2
Further, if Stinson Electric, Inc. adopts a self-insured plan under the Employee
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), which must also comply with the
requirements of 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) and its implementing regulations,
Defendants are preliminarily enjoined until thirty days after the mandate issues from the
Eighth Circuit in O’Brien or Annex Medical, or until thirty days after the Supreme Court
issues its mandate in Kathleen Sebelius, et al., v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., et al., No. 13-
354, and Conestoga Wood Specialty Corporation, et al. v. Kathleen Sebelius, et al., No.
13-356, whichever occurs first, from enforcing the contraceptive coverage requirement
under 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(4) and its implementing regulations against Plaintiffs, its
employees or any third party administrator when administering any self-insured plan for
Stinson Electric, Inc. without coverage for “All Food and Drug Administration approved
contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” as prescribed by a health care provider. Ex. A.3
All proceedings in this case are stayed pending resolution of the appeal in either
2 The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved currently the following contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures for women: female condom; diaphragm with spermicide; sponge with spermicide; cervical cap with spermicide; spermicide alone; oral contraceptives (combined pill) (“the Pill”); oral contraceptives (Progestin-only) (“the Mini Pill”); oral contraceptives (extended/continued use) (“the Pill”); patch; vaginal contraceptive ring; shot/injection; Plan B, Plan B One-Step and Next Choice; Ella; Copper IUD; IUD with progestin; implantable rod; sterilization surgery for women and sterilization implant for women. See U.S. FDA Birth Control Guide, available at http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ForConsumers/ByAudience/ForWomen/FreePublications/ UCM282014.pdf (updated August 2012), attached as Exhibit B hereto. 3 See Note 2, supra.
3

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 14 Filed 04/30/14 Page 4 of 4

O’Brien or Annex Medical, or until the Supreme Court issues a ruling in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood Specialty Corporation cases, whichever occurs first.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: 04/30/14 Hon.

s/Patrick

J. Schiltz Patrick J. Schiltz U.S. District Court Judge

4

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 4

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

________________________________

)

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., et al. ) Case No. 14-CV-830 (PJS/HB)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

STIPULATION FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND INJUNCTION IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS AND STIPULATION FOR FEE MOTION BRIEFING SCHEDULE

In light of the decision by the United States Supreme Court in Burwell v. Hobby

Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), the parties, through their respective counsel,

enter into the following Stipulation:

1. The parties stipulate and agree that judgment may be entered in favor of Plaintiffs and

against Defendants on Count I of the Complaint [Docket No. 1], in the form of the

Order for Injunction and Judgment attached to this Stipulation as Exhibit No. 1.

2. Plaintiffs intend to file a Motion for Attorney Fees and Nontaxable Costs pursuant to

42 U.S.C. § 1988 in the form of Exhibit 2 as a result of the Order for Injunction and

Judgment the Court enters pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Stipulation. The parties

stipulate to the following briefing schedule for the Plaintiffs’ § 1988 attorney fee

motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2) and Local Rule 54.3(b):

1

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 4
a. Plaintiffs shall file their Memorandum of Law and any Declarations in support of the motion for attorney fees and nontaxable costs no later than 45 days from the date judgment is issued;
b. Defendants shall file their Response Memorandum and Declarations no later than 21 days after Plaintiffs file their papers under paragraph a;
c. Plaintiffs shall file their Reply Memorandum and Declarations no later than 14 days after Defendants file their papers under paragraph b.
The parties have provided for the 45-day period for Plaintiff to file the initial papers in support of the attorney fee motion in order to explore the possibility of reaching a negotiated settlement of Plaintiffs’ attorney fee request. Thus, the purpose of this request and stipulation is to facilitate settlement and reduce costs and time expended by both parties and the Court.
- REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 2

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 4

Dated: November 14, 2014

MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A.
/s/Erick G. Kaardal Erick G. Kaardal, 229647 James V. F. Dickey, 393613 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612-341-1074 Fax: 612-341-1076
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

3

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17 Filed 11/14/14 Page 4 of 4

Dated: November 14, 2014

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
/s/Bradley P. Humphreys Bradley P. Humphreys Trial Attorney United States Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Avenue N.W. Room 7310 Washington, D.C. 20530 Telephone: (202) 514-3367 Fax: (202) 616-8470
ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANTS

4

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17-1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

________________________________

)

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., et al. ) Case No. 14-CV-830 (PJS/HB)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

[PROPOSED] ORDER FOR INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are

enjoined

(a) from enforcing

(1) the “June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” defined here to

include those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when

the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require plaintiff Stinson

Electric, Inc. to provide its employees with health coverage for

contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient

education and counseling to which plaintiffs object on religious grounds,

e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-

2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv); and

EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17-1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 2 of 3
(2) any penalties, fines, or assessments for noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, including those found in 26 U.S.C. § 4980D, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d; and
(b) from taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement against plaintiff Stinson Electric, Inc., its employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or Stinson Electric, Inc.’s health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to Stinson Electric, Inc.’s health plan(s); and it is further
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on plaintiffs’ claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.; and it is further
ORDERED that any petition or motion by plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees or costs shall be submitted on or before 45 days (or the next business day if that day falls on a weekend or court holiday) from the date this judgment is issued; and it is further
- REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -
2 EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17-1 Filed 11/14/14 Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that this injunction and Judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing herein prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes.
THERE BEING NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Date: _________________

________________________________ The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge

3 EXHIBIT 1

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 17-2 Filed 11/14/14 Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

________________________________

)

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., et al. ) Case No. 14-CV-830 (PJS/HB)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR ATTORNEY’S FEES AND NONTAXABLE COSTS UNDER FED. R. CIV. P. 54(d)(2) AND LOCAL RULE 54.3(b)

Plaintiffs move for an Order awarding attorney fees and nontaxable costs under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2), District of Minnesota Local Rule 54.3(b), and 42 U.S.C. §§1983 & 1988. This Motion will be based on the supporting Memorandum and Declarations filed in support thereof, and arguments of counsel.

Dated: November __, 2014 MOHRMAN, KAARDAL & ERICKSON, P.A.
Erick G. Kaardal, 229647 James V. F. Dickey, 393613 150 South Fifth Street, Suite 3100 Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 Telephone: 612-341-1074 Fax: 612-341-1076
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

EXHIBIT 2

 
 CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 18 Filed 11/18/14 Page 1 of 3

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

________________________________

)

STINSON ELECTRIC, INC., et al. ) Case No. 14-CV-830 (PJS/HB)

)

)

Plaintiffs,

)

)

v.

)

)

SYLVIA M. BURWELL, et al.,

)

)

Defendants.

)

________________________________ )

ORDER FOR INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT

In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.,

134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), it is hereby

ORDERED that defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are

enjoined

(a) from enforcing

(1) the “June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement,” defined here to

include those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when

the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require plaintiff Stinson

Electric, Inc. to provide its employees with health coverage for

contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient

education and counseling to which plaintiffs object on religious grounds,

e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(1)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.715-

2713(a)(1)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(1)(iv); and

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 18 Filed 11/18/14 Page 2 of 3
(2) any penalties, fines, or assessments for noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, including those found in 26 U.S.C. § 4980D, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d; and
(b) from taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement against plaintiff Stinson Electric, Inc., its employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or Stinson Electric, Inc.’s health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to Stinson Electric, Inc.’s health plan(s); and it is further
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on plaintiffs’ claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.; and it is further
ORDERED that any petition or motion by plaintiffs for attorneys’ fees or costs shall be submitted on or before 45 days (or the next business day if that day falls on a weekend or court holiday) from the date this judgment is issued; and it is further
- REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK -
2

CASE 0:14-cv-00830-PJS-HB Document 18 Filed 11/18/14 Page 3 of 3

ORDERED that this injunction and Judgment does not apply with respect to any changes in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing herein prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any such future changes.
THERE BEING NO JUST REASON FOR DELAY, LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.

Date: 11/18/14

s/Patrick J. Schiltz The Honorable Patrick J. Schiltz United States District Judge

3

 
 CLOSED,CV
U.S. District Court U.S. District of Minnesota (DMN) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 0:14−cv−00830−PJS−HB

Stinson Electric, Inc. et al v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: Judge Patrick J. Schiltz Referred to: Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/26/2014 Date Terminated: 08/23/2016 Jury Demand: Plaintiff Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Stinson Electric, Inc.

represented by Erick G Kaardal Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street Suite 3100 Mpls, MN 55402 612−465−0927 Fax: 612−341−1076 Email: kaardal@mklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James V. F. Dickey Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−465−0960 Fax: 612−341−1076 Email: dickey@mklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vincent J Fahnlander Mohrman, Kaardal & Erickson, P.A. 150 South Fifth Street Suite 3100 Minneapolis, MN 55402 612−465−0924 Fax: 612−341−1076 Email: fahnlander@mklaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Paul Archambault

represented by Erick G Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

James V. F. Dickey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Vincent J Fahnlander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff

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

represented by Erick G Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James V. F. Dickey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vincent J Fahnlander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Erick G Kaardal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James V. F. Dickey (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Vincent J Fahnlander (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen United States Attorney's Office 300 S 4th St Ste 600 Minneapolis, MN 55415 612−664−5615 Fax: 612−664−5788 Email: ann.bildtsen@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys United States Department of Justice 20 Massachusetts Avenue NW Washington, DC 20530 202−514−3367 Email: Bradley.p.humphreys@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address)

Defendant Thomas Perez in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor and his successor
Defendant United States Department of Labor
Defendant Jacob Lew in his official capacity as U.S. Secretary of the Treasury and his successor
Defendant United States Department of the Treasury
Defendant John Koskinen in his official capacity as Commissioner of Internal Revenue and his successor

LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE

Defendant Internal Revenue Service

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Ann M Bildtsen (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Bradley Philip Humphreys (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/26/2014
03/26/2014 03/26/2014 04/04/2014
04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014 04/11/2014

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT Verified Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief − Jury Trial Demanded against All Defendants. ( Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0864−3919067.) Filed by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc.. Filer requests summons issued. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
2 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF INITIAL CASE ASSIGNMENT. Case assigned to Judge Patrick J. Schiltz per Civil Rights Other List referred to Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham. Please use case number 14−cv−830 (PJS/JJG). (MMP) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
3 Summons Issued as to Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (MMP) (Entered: 03/26/2014)
4 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc.. Internal Revenue Service served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; John Koskinen served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; Jacob Lew served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; Thomas Perez served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; Kathleen Sebelius served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; United States Department of Health and Human Services served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; United States Department of Labor served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014; United States Department of the Treasury served on 3/27/2014, answer due 5/27/2014. (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/04/2014)
5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay − Expedited Handling Requested by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc.. (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
6 NOTICE OF HEARING ON MOTION 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay − Expedited Handling Requested : at date and time to be determined. (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
7 MEET and CONFER STATEMENT re 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc.. (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
8 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc. re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay − Expedited Handling Requested, 6 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 7 Meet and Confer Statement (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
9 AFFIDAVIT of Service by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc. re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay − Expedited Handling Requested, 6 Notice of Hearing on Motion, 7 Meet and Confer Statement (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
10 NOTICE of Appearance by Ann M Bildtsen on behalf of Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States

04/11/2014 04/11/2014
04/15/2014 04/30/2014 06/16/2014 08/06/2014 11/14/2014
11/18/2014 11/18/2014 12/30/2014
12/31/2014

Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bildtsen, Ann) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
11 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice for U.S. Government Attorney Bradley P. Humphreys by Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bildtsen, Ann) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
12 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: ORDER granting 11 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice of U.S. Government Attorney Bradley Philip Humphreys for Internal Revenue Service,John Koskinen,Jacob Lew,Thomas Perez,Kathleen Sebelius,United States Department of Health and Human Services,United States Department of Labor,United States Department of the Treasury. Approved by Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham on 4/11/2014. (MAP) (Entered: 04/11/2014)
13 NOTICE by Internal Revenue Service, Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury re 5 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Stay − Expedited Handling Requested of Non−Opposition (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 04/15/2014)
14 ORDER granting 5 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on April 30, 2014. (CLG) (Entered: 04/30/2014)
15 NOTICE of Change of Address by Erick G Kaardal (Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 06/16/2014)
16 TEXT ONLY ENTRY: CLERK'S NOTICE OF REASSIGNMENT. Due to the retirement of Magistrate Judge Graham, this case is reassigned to Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer. Magistrate Judge Jeanne J. Graham no longer assigned to the case.NOTE: the new case number is 14−cv−830 PJS/HB. Please use this case number for all subsequent pleadings. (kt) (Entered: 08/06/2014)
17 STIPULATION for Entry of Judgment and Injunction in Favor of Plaintiffs and Stipulation for Fee Motion Briefing Schedule by Patricia Archambault, Paul Archambault, Robert Archambault, Stinson Electric, Inc.. Jointly Signed by Sylvia M. Burwell, United States Department of Health and Human Service, Thomas Perez, United States Department of Labor, Jacob Lew, United States Department of the Treasury, John Koskinen, and Internal Revenue Service. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit(s) 1, # 2 Exhibit(s) 2)(Kaardal, Erick) (Entered: 11/14/2014)
18 ORDER FOR INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on November 18, 2014. (CLG) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
19 JUDGMENT (Attachments: # 1 Civil Notice − appeal)(MMP) (Entered: 11/18/2014)
20 STIPULATION for Extension of Time to File Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Costs by Internal Revenue Service, John Koskinen, Jacob Lew, Thomas Perez, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. Jointly Signed by Stinson Electric, Inc., Paul Archambault, Patricia Archambault, and Robert Archambault. (Humphreys, Bradley) (Entered: 12/30/2014)
21 ORDER FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES AND COSTS. Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on December 31, 2014. (CLG) (Entered: 12/31/2014)