IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

SIOUX CHIEF MFG. CO., INC.,

)

a Missouri Corporation;

)

)

JOSEPH P. ISMERT;

)

)

DOMINIC ISMERT; and

)

)

JOSEPH N. ISMERT;

)

)

Plaintiffs;

)

)

vs.

)

)

)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS,

)

in her official capacity as Secretary of the )

United States Department of Health and )

Human Services;

)

)

HILDA SOLIS,

)

in her official capacity as Secretary of the )

United States Department of Labor;

)

)

TIMOTHY GEITHNER,

)

in his official capacity as Secretary of the )

United States Department of the Treasury; )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; )

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

LABOR; and

)

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF )

THE TREASURY;

)

)

Defendants.

)

Case No. Division:

1 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 1 of 29

VERIFIED COMPLAINT Plaintiffs Joseph P. Ism ert, Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ism ert, (collectively “Ism erts”) and Sioux Chief Mfg. Co., Inc., a Mi ssouri corporation, (herein “Sio ux Chief” or collectively, with the Ismerts, the “Plaintiffs”) by and through their counsel, state as follows:
NATURE OF THE CASE
1. In this action, the Plaintiffs seek d eclaratory and injunctive relief for the Defendants’ violations of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq. (RFRA), the First an d Fifth Am endments to the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 500, et seq., (“APA”) via 5 U.S.C. § 700, et seq., (allowing for judicial review of APA violations), by Defendan ts’ actions in im plementing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, Pub. L. 111-148 (March 23, 2010), and Pub. L. 111-152 (March 30, 2010) (hereinafter “PPACA”) , in ways that coerce the Plaintiffs and thousands of other conscientious in dividuals to engage in acts th ey consider sinful and imm oral in violation of their most deeply held religiofus beliefs.
2. Plaintiffs Ismerts are practicing an d believing Catholic C hristians. They have associated in a corporate for m to operate Si oux Chief Mfg. Co., Inc., a Missouri corporation. Plaintiff Sioux Chief’s prin cipal place of business is located in Peculiar, Missouri. The Ism erts seek to run Sioux Chief in a m anner that reflect s their sincerely held religious beliefs. The Ismerts, base these sincerely held religious beliefs on the moral teachings of the Catholic Church, and believe that God requires respect for the sanc tity of human life and for the procreative and unitive character of the sexual act in marriage.
2 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 2 of 29

3. Applying this religious faith and the m oral teachings of the Catholic C hurch, the Ismerts have concluded that it would be sinful a nd immoral for them to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate, or ot herwise support a bortifacient drugs, contra ception, or elective sterilization, through health insurance coverage they offer at Sioux Chief. As a consequence, the Ismerts provide health insurance benefits to their employees that omits coverage of abortifacient drugs, contraception, an d elective st erilization. The Ism erts’ plan is self-insured, and the plan year renews each year on April 1, the next renewal date thus occurring on April 1, 2013.
4. Fully knowing that m any religious citizens hold the sam e or sim ilar beliefs, on February 15, 2012, the Defendants issued final rules through th e Departments of HHS, Labor and Treasury, titled “Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Is suers Relating to Coverage of Preventive Services Under the Patient Protec tion and Affordable Care Act,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725– 30 (hereinafter th e “Preventive Services Mand ate” or the “Mandate”)—tha t force Pl aintiffs to pay for and otherwise facilitate the insuranc e coverage and use of abortifacient drugs, contraception, sterilization and related education and counseling.
5. The Ismerts, like oth ers associated in the co rporate form, have conclu ded that compliance with Defendants’ Mandate would require them to violate their deeply held relig ious beliefs as formed by the m oral teachings of the Catholic Church. The Mandate illegally an d unconstitutionally coerces Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held Catholic beliefs under threat of heavy fines and penalties. The Mandate also forces Plaintiffs to fund government-dictated speech that is directly at odds with th e religious ethics derived from their deeply held religious beliefs and the m oral teachings of the Catholic Church that they strive to embody in their business. Defendants’ coercion tramples on the f reedom of conscience of Plaintiffs and millions of other Americans to abide by their religious convictions, to comply with moral imperatives they believe
3 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 3 of 29

are decreed by God Himself through His Church, and to contribute to society through business in a way that is consistent with their religious ethics, deeply held religious beliefs, and the moral teachings of the Catholic Church.
6. Defendants’ refusal to accomm odate the c onscience of the Plaintiffs is highly selective. PPACA exempts a variety of health plans from the Mandate, and upon information and belief the governm ent has provided thousands of exemptions or waivers from the PPACA for various other entities, s uch as larg e corporations. But Defendants’ Mandate does not exe mpt Plaintiffs’ plan or those of many other religious Americans.
7. Defendants’ actions violate the P laintiffs’ right freely to exercise religion, protected by the Religious Freedom Restorati on Act and the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8. Defendants’ actions also viol ate the Plaintiffs’ right to the freedom of speech, as secured by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and their due process rights secured by the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
9. Additionally, Defendants viol ated the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 553, by imposing the Mandate without prior notice or public comment, and for other reasons.
10. Plaintiffs are faced with i mminent harm due to Defendants’ Mand ate. The Mandate by its term s forces Plaintiffs to obtain and pay for insurance coverage of the objectionable items in their April 1, 2013, plan. Plaintiffs must coordinate and arrange the details for that plan on and by March 1, 2013. Plaintiffs therefore will suffer irreparable harm by or before March 1, 2013, unless the Court enters d eclaratory and injunctive relief to protect Plaintiffs from Defendants’ deliberate attack on their consciences and religious freedoms which would result from forced compliance with the Mandate.
4 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 4 of 29

IDENTIFICATION OF PARTIES
11. Sioux Chief Mfg. Co., Inc., a Missouri corpor ation (herein “Sioux Chief”), has its principal place of business at 24110 South Peculiar Drive, Peculiar, Missouri.
12. Sioux Chief is a fam ily business that manufactures plumbing products. It is operated by Plaintiffs Dom inic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, and Joseph P. Is mert (together, the Ismerts).
13. Plaintiff Joseph P. Ismert, a resident of Kansas City, Mi ssouri, is President of the Company. He is also the trustee of a revocable trust that is a shareholder of the Company.
14. Plaintiff Dominic P. Ism ert, a resident of Belton, Missouri, is a shareholder of Plaintiff Sioux Chief, a Vice President, and the Treasurer of the Company.
15. Plaintiff Joseph N. Ism ert, a resident of Overland Park, Kansas, is a shareholder of Plaintiff Sioux Chief, a Vice-President, and the Secretary of the Company.
16. Together, the Ism erts represent all th e voting shares of the Com pany, and approximately 85% of the nonvoting shares.
17. Each of the Ismerts is a member of Sioux Chief’s Board of Directors. 18. By virtue of their ownership, directorsh ip and of ficer positions, the Ism erts are responsible for implementing Sioux Chief’s compliance with Defendants’ Mandate. 19. Defendants are appointed officials of the United States gov ernment and United States Executive Branch agencies responsible for issuing and enforcing the Mandate. 20. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is the Secretary of the United States Departm ent of Health and Human Services (HHS). In this capac ity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of HHS. Sebelius is sued in her official capacity only.
5 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 5 of 29

21. Defendant Department of Health and Hum an Services is an executive agency of the United States governm ent and is responsible for the pr omulgation, administration and enforcement of the Mandate.
22. Defendant Hilda Solis is the Secretary of the United States Department of Labor. In this capacity, she has responsibility for the operation and management of the Departm ent of Labor. Solis is sued in her official capacity only.
23. Defendant Department of Labor is an executive agency of the United States government and is responsible for the prom ulgation, administration, and enforcem ent of the Mandate.
24. Defendant Timothy Geithner is the Secret ary of the Departm ent of the Treasury. In this capacity, he has responsibility for th e operation and m anagement of the Departm ent. Geithner is sued in his official capacity only.
25. Defendant Department of Treasury is an execu tive agency of the Unite d States government and is responsible for the prom ulgation, administration, and enforcem ent of the Mandate.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
26. This action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States. The Court has subject m atter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1361, jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 & 2202, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, 5 U.S.C. § 702, and Fed. R. Civ. P. 65, and to award reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2412, and RFRA, 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
6 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 6 of 29

27. Venue lies in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e). A substantial part of the events or om issions giving rise to the claim occurred in this district, and one or more of the Plaintiffs are located in this district.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS I. THE ISMERTS’ RELIGIOUS BELI EFS AND O PERATION OF SIOUX CHIE F ACCORDING TO THE SAME
28. The Ismerts are practicing and believing Catholic Christians. 29. They strive to f ollow Catholic e thical beliefs and religious and m oral teachings throughout their lives, including in their operation of Sioux Chief. 30. The Ismerts sincerely believe that the Catholic faith does not allow them to violate Catholic religious and moral teachings in their decisions operating Sioux Chief. 31. They Ismerts further believe that their operation of Sioux Chief must be guided by ethical social principles and Catholic religious and moral teachings, that individuals must operate their businesses acco rding to the God-ordained ethics, religious and moral teach ings of the Church, and, that their Catholic faith prohibits them to sever their religious beliefs from their daily business practice, and that th eir Catholic f aith requires them to integrate the g ifts of the spiritual life, the virtues, morals, and ethical so cial principles of Catholic teach ing into their life and work. 32. The Catholic Church teaches that abortifacient drugs, contraception and sterilization are intrinsic evils. 33. As a matter of religious faith the Ismerts believe that those Catholic teachings are among the religious ethical teachings they must follow throughout their lives includ ing in their business practice.
7 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 7 of 29

34. Consequently, the Ismerts believe that it would be immoral and sinful for them to intentionally participate in, pay for, facilitate, or ot herwise support abortifacient drugs, contraception, sterilization, and related education a nd counseling, as would be required by the Mandate, through their inclusion in the health benefits paid for by Sioux Chief.
35. Article X of Sioux Chief’s Articles of In corporation gives the corporation the “power and obligation to accom plish the purp oses of the Corporatio n following appropriate religious, ethical, or moral standards.”
36. Article III, Section 9 of the Bylaws states: “Guiding Principles for Directors: In establishing appropriate religious, ethical, or moral standards referenced in Article X, par. 4 of the Articles of Incor poration, each direc tor may continue to use his or her business and religious judgm ent, even should the adoption of any religious, ethical, or moral standards result in a reduction of the profitability of the Corporation.” 37. Further, Article V, Section 10 of Sioux Chief’s Bylaws states: “Guiding Principles for Officers: In estab lishing appropriate religious , ethical, or moral standards referenced in Article X, par. 4 of the Articles of Incorporation, each officer may continue to use his or her business and religious judgm ent, even should the adoption of any religious, ethical, or moral standards result in a reduction of the profitability of the Corporation.” 38. Under the Ismerts’ direction, Sioux Chief contributes to charitable, religious, and educational organizations, includ ing those th at advance sp iritual, moral and ethical teachings consistent with Catholicism. Sioux Chief part icularly supports pro-li fe groups that uphold the Church’s teachings concerning abortion. Since 1999, Sioux Chief has donated over $2 million to
8 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 8 of 29

charitable causes; approximately 84% of Sioux Ch ief’s charitable donations have been m ade to Catholic or other life-supporting organizations.
II. SIOUX CHIEF’S HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN 39. As part of fulfilling their o rganizational mission and Catholic beliefs and
commitments, Plaintiffs provide generous health insurance for their employees. 40. Sioux Chief has approxim ately 370 full-time employees at its Peculiar, Missouri
location. 41. Plaintiffs maintain a self-insured group plan for their em ployees, in which Sioux
Chief acts as its own insurer. 42. The plan year for Sioux Chief’s self -insured plan begins on April 1 of each year,
with the next plan year starting on April 1, 2013. 43. Consistent with Plaintiffs’ religious commitments, Sioux Chief’s self-insured plan
does not cover abortifacient drugs, contracep tion or sterilization; indeed, Sioux Chief has excluded elective sterilization, abortifacient drugs, or contraception from employee coverage for more than ten years.
44. To implement the plan for the year beginning April 1, 2013, Plaintiffs must make insurance coverage decisions and logistical arrangements on or by March 1, 2013. III. THE PPACA AND DEFENDANTS’ MANDATE THEREUNDER
45. Under the PPACA, e mployers with over 50 full-time employees are req uired to provide a certain minimum level of health insurance to their employees.
9 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 9 of 29

46. Nearly all such plans must includ e “preventive services,” which must be offered with no cost-sharing by the employee.
47. On February 10, 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized a rule (previously referred to in this Complaint as the Mandate) th at imposes a def inition of preventive services to include all FDA-approved “contraceptive” drugs, surgical sterilization, and education and counseling for such services.
48. This final rule was adopted without giving due weight to the tens of thousands of public comments submitted to HHS in opposition to the Mandate.
49. In the category of “FDA-approved contraceptives” included in this M andate are several drugs or devices that m ay cause the demise of an already-conceived but not-yetimplanted human embryo, such as “em ergency contraception” or “Plan B” drugs (th e so-called “morning after” pill).
50. The FDA approved in this same category a drug called “ella” (the so-called “week after” pill), which studies show can function to kill embryos even after they have implanted in the uterus, by a mechanism similar to the abortion drug RU-486.
51. The manufacturers of som e such drugs, methods and devices in the category of “FDA-approved contraceptive methods” indicate that they can function to cause the demise of an early human embryo.
52. The Mandate also requires group health care plans to pay for the provision of counseling, education, and other information concerning contra ception (including devices and drugs such as Plan B and ella that caus e early abortions or harm to hum an embryos) and sterilization for all women beneficiaries who are capable of bearing children.
10 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 10 of 29

53. The Mandate applies to the f irst health insurance plan-year beginning after August 1, 2012.
54. An entity cannot escap e the Mand ate by self-insuring ; Plaintiffs’ plan is thus subject to the Mandate even though it is self-insured.
55. Thus Plaintiffs are, absent relief from this Court, subject to th e Mandate’s requirement of coverage of the above-descri bed items starting in Sioux Chief’s April 1, 2013, plan.
56. The Mandate makes little or no allowance for the religious freedom of entities and individuals, including Pl aintiffs, who object to paying for or providing insurance coverage for such items.
57. An entity cannot freely avoid the M andate by simply refusing to provide health insurance to its em ployees, because the PPACA im poses monetary penalties on entities that would so refuse.
58. The exact m agnitude of these penalties may vary acco rding to the co mplicated provisions of the PPACA, but the fine is approximately $2,000 per employee per year.
59. PPACA also imposes monetary penalties if Sioux Chief were to continue to offe r its self-insured plan but continued omitting abortifacients, contraceptives and sterilization.
60. The exact m agnitude of these penalties may vary acco rding to the co mplicated provisions of the PPACA, but the fine is approximately $100 per day per employee, with minimum amounts applying in different circumstances.
61. If Plaintiffs do not submit to the Mandate they also trigger a range of enforcement mechanisms that exist under ERISA, including but not limited to civil actions by the Secretary of Labor or by plan participants an d beneficiaries, which would include but not be limited to relief
11 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 11 of 29

in the form of judicial orders m andating that Pl aintiffs violate their si ncerely held religious beliefs and provide coverage for items to which they religiously object.
62. The Mandate applies not only to sponsors of group health plans like Plaintiffs, but also to issuers of insurance. Accordingly, Plaintiffs cannot avoid the Mandate by shopping for an insurance plan that accommodates their r ight of conscience, because the Adm inistration has intentionally foreclosed that possibility.
63. The Mandate offers the possibility of a narrow exemption to religious employers, but only if they meet all of the following requirements:
1) “The inculcation of religious values is the purpose of the organization”; 2) “The organization prim arily employs persons who share the religious
tenets of the organization”; 3) “The organization serves prim arily persons who share the religious tenets
of the organization”; and 4) The organization is a church, an in tegrated auxiliary of a church, a
convention or association of chur ches, or is an exclusively religious activity of a religious order, under Internal Revenue Code 6033(a)(1) and (a)(3)(A). 64. The Mandate im poses no constraint on th e government’s discretion to grant exemptions to som e, all, or none of the orga nizations meeting th e Mandate’s definition o f “religious employers.” 65. Plaintiffs are not “relig ious” enough under this definition in several respects, including but not lim ited to because they have purposes othe r than the “inculcation o f religious values,” they do not prim arily hire or serve Cat holics, and because Sio ux Chief is not a church ,
12 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 12 of 29

integrated auxiliary of a part icular church, convention or a ssociation of a church, or the exclusively religious activities of a religious order.
66. The Mandate fails to protect the statutory and constitutional conscience rights of religious Americans like Plaintiffs even though t hose rights were repeatedly raised in the public comments.
67. The Mandate requires that Plaintiffs pr ovide coverage for a bortifacient methods, contraception, sterilization and education and counseling related to the sam e, against their conscience and in violation of their religious beliefs, in a manner that is contrary to law.
68. The Mandate constitutes government-imposed coercion on Plaintiffs to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
69. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial fines for refusal to change or violate their religious beliefs.
70. The Mandate will im pose a burden on the Plaintiffs’ employee recruitment and retention efforts by creating uncertainty as to whether or on what terms they will be able to of fer health insurance beyond the Mandate’s effect or will suffer penalties therefrom.
71. The Mandate will place Plaintiffs at a competitive disadvantage in their efforts to recruit and retain employees.
72. Plaintiffs have a sin cere conscientious religious objection to providing coverage for abortifacients, contraception, sterilization and related education and counseling.
73. The Mandate does not apply equally to all religious adherents or groups. 74. PPACA and the Mandate are no t generally applicable becau se they p rovide for numerous exemptions from their rules.
13 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 13 of 29

75. For instance, the Mandate does not apply to members of a “recogn ized religious sect or division” that conscientiously objects to acceptance of public or private insurance funds. See 26 U.S.C. §§ 5000A(d)(2)(a)(i) and (ii).
76. In addition, as described above, the Manda te exempts certain churches narrowly considered to be religious employers.
77. Furthermore, the PPACA creates a system of individualized exem ptions because under the PPACA’s authorization the federal gove rnment has granted discretionary com pliance waivers to a variety of businesses for purely secular reasons.
78. The Mandate does not apply to em ployers with preexisting plans that are “grandfathered.”
79. However, a plan loses its “grandfathered” st atus if, compared to the plan in effect on March 23, 2010, the plan signifi cantly raises deductibles, co-pay s, co-insurance charges, or significantly lowers coverage, lim its, or em ployer contributions. Sioux Chief’s redesigned its plan, effective April 1, 2010, to increase m any coverages, but also incr eased deductibles and reduced employer contributions as of April 1, 2010.
80. For example, Sioux Chief’s deductible increased on April 1, 2010, from $300 to $1,000, an increase of more than 15% plus medical inflation since March 23, 2010.
81. As a result of the changes m ade in April 2010, Sioux Chief’s plan is not grandfathered. See, e.g., 26 C.F.R. §54.9815–1251T (g)(1), 29 C.F.R. §2590.715–1251, and 45 CFR §147.140 (all setting forth requirements to maintain grandfather status).
82. The Mandate does not apply through the employer mandate to employers having fewer than fifty full-time employees.
14 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 14 of 29

83. President Obama held a press conference on February 10, 2012, and later (through Defendants) issued an “Advanced Notice of Proposed Rulemaking” (“ANPRM”) (77 Fed. Reg. 16501–08), on March 21, 2012, claim ing to offer a “co mpromise” under which som e religious non-profit organizations not m eeting the above defi nition would still have to comply with the Mandate, but by m eans of the em ployer’s insurer offering the em ployer’s employees the same coverage for “free.”
84. This “compromise” is not helpful to Pl aintiffs because, among other reason s, Sioux Chief is not a non-profit entity, and Sioux Chief’s plan is self-insured.
85. On February 10, 2012, a document was also issued from the Center for Consumer Information and Insura nce Oversight (CCIIO), Centers for Medica re & Medica id Services (CMS), of HHS, entitled “Guidance on the Tem porary Enforcement Safe Harbor f or Certain Employers, Group Health P lans and Group Health Insurance Issuers with R espect to the Requirement to Cover Contracep tive 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.”
86. Under this “Guidance,” an organization that truthfully declares “I certif y that the organization is o rganized and operated as a non-profit entity; and that, at any point from February 10, 2012, onward, contraceptive coverage has not been provided by the plan, consistent with any applicab le State law, because of the religious beliefs of the organization,” and that provides a specified notice to plan participants, will not “be subject to any enforcement action by the Departments for failing to cover recommended contraceptive services without cost sharing in non-exempted, non-grandfathered group health plans established or m aintained by an organization, including a group or association of employers within the meaning of section 3(5) of
15 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 15 of 29

ERISA, (and any group health insurance coverage provided in connecti on with such plans),”

until “the first plan year that begins on or after August 1, 2013.”

87. The “Guidance” catego rically disqualifies Plaintiffs from making use of this

“extra year” because, among other reasons, Sioux Chief is not a non-profit entity.

88. Therefore while the Presiden t’s “compromise” and guidance purport to

accommodate the religious beliefs of even m ore groups beyond the Mandate’s initial exem ption

for churches, none of these m easures will stop the Mandate from imposing its requirements on

Plaintiffs’ plan year beginning April 1, 2013.

89. Unless relief issues from this Court, Plaintiffs are forced to take the M andate into

account now and no later than March 1, 2013, as it plans expenditures, including em ployee

compensation and benef its packages, for the Ap ril 1, 2013, plan year and for the next several

years. It will have to negotiate contracts for ne w and existing employees and these contracts will

extend into the time frame when the Mandate begins to apply to its health insurance plans.

90. The Mandate is having a profound and advers e effect on Pl aintiffs and how they

negotiate contracts and compensate their employees.

91. The Mandate makes it difficult for Plaintiffs to attract quality employees because

of uncertainty about health insurance benefits.

92. Any alleged interest Defendants have in providing

free contracep tion,

abortifacients and sterilizati on without cost-sharing could be advanced through other, m ore

narrowly tailored m echanisms that do not burden the religious beliefs of Plaintiffs and do not

require them to provide or facilitate coverage of such items through their health plan.

16 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 16 of 29

93. Without injunctive and declaratory re lief as requested herein, including preliminary injunctive relief issued before March 1, 2013, Plaintiffs are suffering and will continue to suffer irreparable harm.
94. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT 42 U.S.C. § 2000BB
95. Plaintiffs reallege all matte rs set forth in paragraphs 1-94 and incorporate them herein by reference.
96. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious belie fs prohibit them from providing coverage for abortifacients, contracep tion, sterilization, and related education and counseling in their employee health plan.
97. When Plaintiffs comply with Catho lic ethical and moral teachings on abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization and with their sincerely held religious beliefs, they exercise religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
98. The Mandate im poses a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religi ous exercise and coerces them to change or violate their sincerely held religious beliefs.
99. The Mandate chills Plaintiffs’ religious exercise within the meaning of RFRA. 100. The Mandate exposes P laintiffs to substa ntial fines and/or f inancial burdens for their religious exercise. 101. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial com petitive disadvantages because of uncertainties about their health insurance benefits caused by the Mandate.
17 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 17 of 29

102. The Mandate furthers no com pelling governmental interest and is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest.
103. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ stated interests.
104. The Mandate violates RFRA.
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF FREE EXERCISE CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
105. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1- 94 and incorporate them herein by reference.
106. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious belie fs prohibit them from providing coverage for abortifacients, contracep tion, sterilization, and related education and counseling in their employee health plan.
107. When Plaintiffs comply with Catho lic ethical and moral teachings on abortifacients, contraception, and sterilization and with their sincerely held religious beliefs, they exercise religion within the meaning of the Free Exercise Clause.
108. The Mandate is not neutral and is not generally applicable. 109. Defendants have created categorical exemptions and individualized exemptions to the Mandate. 110. The Mandate furthers no compelling governmental interest.
18 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 18 of 29

111. The Mandate is not the least restrictive means of furthering Defendants’ stated

interests.

112. The Mandate coerces Plaintiffs to change or violate their sin cerely held religious

beliefs.

113. The Mandate chills Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.

114. The Mandate exposes P laintiffs to substa ntial fines and/or f inancial burdens for

their religious exercise.

115. The Mandate exposes Plaintiffs to substantial com petitive disadvantages because

of uncertainties about its health insurance benefits caused by the Mandate.

116. The Mandate imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.

117. The Mandate is not narrowly tailored to any compelling governmental interest.

118. By design, Defendants framed the Mandate to apply to some religious Americans

but not to others, resulting in discrimination among religions.

119. Defendants have created exem ptions to the Mandate for some religious believers

but not others based on characteristics of their beliefs and their religious exercise.

120. Defendants designed the Mandate, the religious exem ption thereto, and the

“compromise” and guidance allowances thereto, in a way that m akes it impossible for Plaintiffs

and other Americans holding similar religious beliefs to comply with those religious beliefs.

121. Defendants promulgated both th e Mandate and the

religious

exemption/allowances with the purpose and intent to suppress the religious exercise of Plaintiffs

and others.

122. The Mandate violates P laintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Free Exercis e

Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution.

19 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 19 of 29

WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION
123. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1- 94 and incorporate them herein by reference.
124. The First Amendment’s Establishment Clause prohibits the establishment of any religion and/or excessive government entanglement with religion.
125. To determine whether religious persons (or associations of religious persons) like Plaintiffs are required to comply with the Man date, are required to continue to comply with the Mandate, are eligible for an exemption or other accomm odations, or continue to be eligib le for the same, Defendants must exam ine the relig ious beliefs and doctrinal teachings of persons or entities like Plaintiffs.
126. Obtaining sufficient information for the Defendants to an alyze the content of Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious belie fs requires ongoing, comprehensive governm ent surveillance that impermissibly entangles Defendants with religion.
127. The Mandate discriminates among religions and among denominations, favoring some over others, and exhibits hostility to religious beliefs.
128. The Mandate adopts a particular th eological view of what is accep table moral complicity in provision of abortifacient, contrace ptive and sterilization coverage and im poses it upon all religionists who must either conform their consciences or suffer penalty.
20 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 20 of 29

129. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured to th em by the Es tablishment Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE FREE SPEECH CLAUSE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION 130. Plaintiffs reallege all matte rs set forth in paragraphs 1-94 and incorporate them herein by reference. 131. Defendants’ requirement of provision of insurance coverage for education and counseling regarding contracepti on and abortion-causing drugs for ces Plaintiffs to speak in a manner contrary to their religious beliefs. 132. Defendants have no narrowly tailored compelling interest to justify this compelled speech. 133. The Mandate violates Plaintiffs’ rights secured to them by the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
21 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 21 of 29

FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE UNITED STATES
CONSTITUTION 134. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1- 94 and incorporate them herein by reference. 135. Because the Mandate s weepingly infringes upon religious exercise an d speech rights that are constitutionally protected, it is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad in violation of the due process rights of Plaintiffs and other parties not before the Court. 136. Persons of common intelligence must n ecessarily guess at the m eaning, scope, and application of the Mandate and its exemptions. 137. This Mandate lends itself to discrimina tory enforcement by government officials in an arbitrary and capricious manner. 138. The Mandate vests Defendants with unbrid led discretion in deciding whether to allow exemptions to som e, all, or no organizati ons meeting whatever definition of “religious employers” it decides to craft. 139. This Mandate is an unconstitutional viol ation of Plaintiffs’ due process rights under the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
22 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 22 of 29

SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT
140. Plaintiffs reallege all matters set forth in paragraphs 1- 94 and incorporate them herein by reference.
141. Because they did not give proper notice and an opportunity for public comm ent, Defendants did not take into accou nt the full im plications of the regulations by com pleting a meaningful consideration of the relevant matter presented.
142. Defendants did not consider or res pond to the volum inous comments they received in opposition to the interim final rule.
143. Therefore, Defendants have taken ag ency action not in accord ance with procedures required by law, and Plaintiffs are entitled to relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(D).
144. In promulgating the Mandate, Defendants failed to consider the constitutional and statutory implications of the Mandate on Plaintiffs and similar persons.
145. Defendants’ explanation (and lack ther eof) for its decision not to exem pt Plaintiffs and sim ilar religious organizations from the Mandate runs counter to the evidence submitted by religious Americans during the comment period.
146. Thus, Defendants’ issuance of the Mandate was arbitrary and capricious within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A ) because the Mandate fails to consider th e full extent of its implications and it does not take into consideration the evidence against it.
147. As set forth above, the Mandate viol ates RFRA and t he First and Fifth Amendments.
148. The Mandate is also contrary to th e provision of the PPACA which states that “nothing in this title” — i.e., title I of the Act, which in cludes the provision dealing with
23 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 23 of 29

“preventive services” — “shall b e construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of [abortion] services . . . as part of its essential health b enefits for any plan year.” Section 1303(b)(1)(A). Some drugs include d as “FDA-approved contracep tives” under the Mandate cause abortions by causing the dem ise of hum an embryos before and/or after implantation.
149. The Mandate is a lso contrary to the pr ovisions of the Weldon Amendment of the Consolidated Security, Disaster Assistance, an d Continuing Appropriations Act of 2009, Public Law 110 329, Div. A, Sec. 101, 122 Stat. 3574, 3575 (Sept. 30, 2008), which provides that “[n]one of the funds m ade available in this Act [m aking appropriations for Defendants Department of Labor a nd Health and Hum an Services] may be m ade available to a Federal agency or program . . . if such agency, program , or governm ent subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to disc rimination on the basis that the hea lth care en tity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.”
150. The Mandate also violates the provisions of the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. § 300a-7(d), which provides that “[ n]o individual shall be required to perform or assist in the performance of any part of a he alth service program or research activity funded in whole or in part under a program administered by the S ecretary of Health and Human Services if his performance or assistance in the perf ormance of such part of such program or activity would be contrary to his religious beliefs or moral convictions.”
151. The Mandate is contrary to existing law and is in violation of the APA under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A) – (F).
WHEREFORE, the Plaintiffs pray for the relief set forth below.
24 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 24 of 29

PRAYER WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request the following relief:
A. That this Court enter a judgm ent declaring the Mandate and its applic ation to Plaintiffs and others sim ilarly situated but not before the Court to be a violation of their rig hts protected by RFRA, the Free Ex ercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United Sta tes Constitution, and/or the Administrative Procedure Act, and therefore invalid in any way applicable to them;
B. That this Court ente r a preliminary and a permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs and ot hers similarly situated but not before the Court in a way that substantially burdens the religious belief of Plaintiffs or any person in violation of RFRA and the Constitu tion, and prohibiting Defendants from continuing to illegally discriminate against Plaintiffs and others not before the Court by requiring them to provide health insurance coverage for a bortifacients, contraception, sterilization and related education and counseling to their employees;
C. That this Court award Plaintiffs court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees, as provided by the Equal Access to Justice Act and RFRA (as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 1988);
D. That this C ourt grant such other and furthe r relief as to which the Plain tiffs may be entitled.
25 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 25 of 29

January 14, 2013

Respectfully submitted,
s/ Jonathan R. Whitehead
LAW OFFICES OF JONATHAN R WHITEHEAD LLC Jonathan R. Whitehead Mo. 56848 229 S.E. Douglas St., Ste. 210 Lee’s Summit, Mo 64063 816.398.8305 - Phone 816.278.9131 – Fax
and
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Kevin H. Theriot, Esq., Mo. 55733 ktheriot@telladf.org 15192 Rosewood Leawood, KS 66224 (913) 685-8000 (913) 685-8001 (facsimile)
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS

26 Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 26 of 29

I declare under

VERIFICATION
ury that the foregoing is true and conect. Executed on

27
Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 27 of 29

VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on
ryfglor3. "
28
Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 28 of 29

Case 4:13-cv-00036-ODS Document 1 Filed 01/14/13 Page 29 of 29

62
l>IHJA]SrdOI,MMOCJ uo pojnooxg ioojjod pue otuj si StuoSsjoj nqi luqi /tinfjod jo ^jprnod jopun oanpop j
NOLLYDLIM3A

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

SIOUX CHIEF MFG. CO., INC., et al.

Plaintiffs,

vs.

)

KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, Secretary of the United States Dept. of Health and Human Services, et al.

Defendants.

) ) ) )
Case No. 13-0036-CV-W-ODS ) ) ) ) ) )

ORDER (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANT’S UNOPPOSED MOTION TO STAY
PROCEEDINGS

Before this Court is Pla intiff’s Unopposed Motion for Preli minary Injunction (Doc. # 4) and Defendant’s Unopp osed Motion to Stay Proceedings (Doc. # 8). The Court grants bot h Motions.
Plaintiffs move for a preliminary injunction, staying enforcement of the Health an d Human Service regulations requiring Plaintiffs to provide its employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Ad ministration approved contraceptive methods, sterilizat ion procedures, and patient education counseling for all women with reproductive capacity.” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiff’s Motion pending the Eighth Circuit’s de cision in Annex Medical, Inc. v. Kathleen Sebelius, No. 13-1118 (8th Cir. Feb. 1, 2013) or O’Brien v. U.S. Dep’t of Health a nd Human Services, No. 12-3357 (8th Cir. No v. 28, 2012) , whichever comes fir st. Because Defendant consents to Plaintiff’s Motion, the Motion is granted. Additionally, Defendants move to st ay all proce edings in th is case until the appea l in O’Brien or Annex Medical is resolved. Plaintiffs do not oppose this request. Defendants’ Motion is granted.
The preliminary injunction and stay will remain in effe ct until this Court takes fu rther action. Pla intiffs are d irected to n otify the Court once the Eighth Circuit has rendered a decision.

IT IS SO ORDERED.
/s/ ORTRI DATE: February 28, 2013

Ortrie D. Smith________________ E D. SMITH, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 
 CLOSED,EAPN
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:13−cv−00036−ODS

Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. et al v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: District Judge Ortrie D. Smith Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Date Terminated: 11/12/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. A Missouri Corporation

represented by Kevin H. Theriot Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N 90th St Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead 229 SE Douglas St. Ste. 210 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 398−8305 Fax: (816) 278−9131 Email: jon@whiteheadlawllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph P. Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph N. Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dominic Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 1 of 5

V. Defendant Sylvia Burwell in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant Hilda Solis in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor
Defendant Timothy F. Geithner in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant United States Department of Labor
Defendant United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Michelle Bennett United States Department of Justice−DC 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 305−8902 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

01/14/2013

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $350, receipt number 0866−3372737. Service due by 5/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/14/2013

2 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiff Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc..(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/15/2013

3 Notice of EAP assignment to an outside mediator sent via electronic notice to plaintiffs' counsel. (Attachments: # 1 EAP General Order)(Martin, Jan) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/18/2013

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury, US Attorney, US Attorney General. (Martin, Jan) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 2 of 5

02/27/2013 02/27/2013 02/27/2013
02/28/2013
02/28/2013 02/28/2013 03/01/2013
03/01/2013
07/15/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014

4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
5 SUGGESTIONS in support re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Verified Complaint))(Related document(s) 4 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re 5 Suggestions in Support of Motion, 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. Related document: 5 Suggestions in Support of Motion, filed by Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc., Joseph N. Ismert, Dominic Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc., Joseph N. Ismert, Dominic Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert.(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
7 RESPONSE to motion re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. Reply suggestions due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 3/1/2013 to remove proposed order (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
8 Consent MOTION to stay filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 3/1/2013 to remove proposed order (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
9 ORDER entered by Judge Ortrie Smith granting 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and granting 8 Motion to Stay. The preliminary injunction and stay will remain in effect until this Court takes further action. Plaintiffs are directed to notify the Court once the Eighth Circuit has rendered a decision. (Kanies, Renea) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 02/28/13 as Document No. 7, RESPONSE to motion re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word or WordPerfect format. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 02/28/13 as Document No. 8, Consent MOTION to stay filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word or WordPerfect format. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
10 ORDER lifting stay and directing parties to file Joint Status Report. A Joint Status Report setting forth their agreement or their separate positions shall be filed on or before August 18, 2014. Signed on July 15, 2014, by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
11 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
12 ORDER (1) CONTINUING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT. Signed on 8/18/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 3 of 5

09/17/2014

13 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/19/2014

14 ORDER (1) CONTINUING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE PROPOSED INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT. Signed on 9/19/2014 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Hucker, Anne) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

10/01/2014

15 RESPONSE to order re 14 Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Permanent Injunction and Judgment filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Judgment)(Related document(s) 14 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

16 NOTICE of filing Defs.' Proposed Injunction & Judgment, and Suggestions in Support Thereof by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury re 14 Order (Attachments: # 1 Defs.' Proposed Injunction & Judgment)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/15/2014

17 NOTICE of filing Defendants' Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Proposed Permanent Injunction by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/15/2014

18 NOTICE of filing Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Injunction by Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. re 16 Notice of filing, (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

11/12/2014 19 ORDER granting Injunction. Signed on 11/12/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 20 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

12/17/2014

21 Joint MOTION for extension of time for plaintiffs to file any motion for attorney's fees filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/5/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/17/2014)

12/18/2014

22 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ANY MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, 21 . Signed on 12/18/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

01/28/2015

23 Joint MOTION for extension of time for plaintiffs to file any motion for attorney's fees filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/17/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

24 WITHDRAWN PER 28 ORDER FILED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2015. MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/17/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Jonathan R. Whitehead, # 2 Exhibit B − Time Entries)(Whitehead, Jonathan) Modified on 2/12/2015 to reflect motion is withdrawn (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

25 SUGGESTIONS in support re 24 MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/29/2015

26 ORDER GRANTING SECOND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ANY MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 23 . Signed on 1/29/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

02/11/2015

27 Joint MOTION to withdraw document 24 MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/2/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 4 of 5

02/11/2015

28 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, 24 and 27 . Signed on 2/11/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 5 of 5

 
 CLOSED,EAPN
U.S. District Court Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:13−cv−00036−ODS

Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. et al v. Sebelius et al Assigned to: District Judge Ortrie D. Smith Cause: 05:551 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 01/14/2013 Date Terminated: 11/12/2014 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. A Missouri Corporation

represented by Kevin H. Theriot Alliance Defending Freedom 15100 N 90th St Scottsdale, AZ 85260 480−444−0020 Fax: 480−444−0028 Email: ktheriot@alliancedefendingfreedom.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead 229 SE Douglas St. Ste. 210 Lee's Summit, MO 64063 (816) 398−8305 Fax: (816) 278−9131 Email: jon@whiteheadlawllc.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph P. Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Joseph N. Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Dominic Ismert

represented by Kevin H. Theriot (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jonathan R. Whitehead (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 1 of 5

V. Defendant Sylvia Burwell in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant Hilda Solis in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Labor
Defendant Timothy F. Geithner in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services
Defendant United States Department of Labor
Defendant United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Michelle Bennett United States Department of Justice−DC 20 Massachusetts Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 305−8902 Fax: (202) 616−8470 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed # Docket Text

01/14/2013

1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Filing fee $350, receipt number 0866−3372737. Service due by 5/17/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet)(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/14/2013

2 DISCLOSURE OF CORPORATE INTERESTS filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiff Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc..(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/14/2013)

01/15/2013

3 Notice of EAP assignment to an outside mediator sent via electronic notice to plaintiffs' counsel. (Attachments: # 1 EAP General Order)(Martin, Jan) (Entered: 01/15/2013)

01/18/2013

SUMMONS ISSUED as to Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury, US Attorney, US Attorney General. (Martin, Jan) (Entered: 01/18/2013)
Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 2 of 5

02/27/2013 02/27/2013 02/27/2013
02/28/2013
02/28/2013 02/28/2013 03/01/2013
03/01/2013
07/15/2014 08/18/2014 08/18/2014

4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
5 SUGGESTIONS in support re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A (Verified Complaint))(Related document(s) 4 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
6 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE by All Plaintiffs re 5 Suggestions in Support of Motion, 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. Related document: 5 Suggestions in Support of Motion, filed by Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc., Joseph N. Ismert, Dominic Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc., Joseph N. Ismert, Dominic Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert.(Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 02/27/2013)
7 RESPONSE to motion re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. Reply suggestions due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 3/1/2013 to remove proposed order (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
8 Consent MOTION to stay filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/18/2013 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) Modified on 3/1/2013 to remove proposed order (McDowell, Shelly). (Entered: 02/28/2013)
9 ORDER entered by Judge Ortrie Smith granting 4 Motion for Preliminary Injunction and granting 8 Motion to Stay. The preliminary injunction and stay will remain in effect until this Court takes further action. Plaintiffs are directed to notify the Court once the Eighth Circuit has rendered a decision. (Kanies, Renea) (Entered: 02/28/2013)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 02/28/13 as Document No. 7, RESPONSE to motion re 4 MOTION for preliminary injunction filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of Defendants Timothy F. Geithner, Kathleen Sebelius, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word or WordPerfect format. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
NOTICE OF DOCKET MODIFICATION. A modification has been made to the document filed on 02/28/13 as Document No. 8, Consent MOTION to stay filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order). The proposed order attached to the motion has been deleted. Per Administrative Procedures any proposed orders are to be emailed to the Courtroom Deputy in Word or WordPerfect format. This is a text entry only − no document is attached. (McDowell, Shelly) (Entered: 03/01/2013)
10 ORDER lifting stay and directing parties to file Joint Status Report. A Joint Status Report setting forth their agreement or their separate positions shall be filed on or before August 18, 2014. Signed on July 15, 2014, by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Melvin, Greg) (Entered: 07/15/2014)
11 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 08/18/2014)
12 ORDER (1) CONTINUING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; AND (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE JOINT STATUS REPORT. Signed on 8/18/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 08/18/2014)

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 3 of 5

09/17/2014

13 STATUS REPORT (Joint) by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 09/17/2014)

09/19/2014

14 ORDER (1) CONTINUING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND (2) DIRECTING PARTIES TO FILE PROPOSED INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT. Signed on 9/19/2014 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Hucker, Anne) (Entered: 09/19/2014)

10/01/2014

15 RESPONSE to order re 14 Order Plaintiffs' Proposed Permanent Injunction and Judgment filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Proposed Judgment)(Related document(s) 14 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/01/2014

16 NOTICE of filing Defs.' Proposed Injunction & Judgment, and Suggestions in Support Thereof by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury re 14 Order (Attachments: # 1 Defs.' Proposed Injunction & Judgment)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/01/2014)

10/15/2014

17 NOTICE of filing Defendants' Suggestions in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Proposed Permanent Injunction by Sylvia Burwell, Timothy F. Geithner, Hilda Solis, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

10/15/2014

18 NOTICE of filing Suggestions in Opposition to Defendants' Proposed Injunction by Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc. re 16 Notice of filing, (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/15/2014)

11/12/2014 19 ORDER granting Injunction. Signed on 11/12/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

11/12/2014 20 CLERK'S JUDGMENT (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 11/12/2014)

12/17/2014

21 Joint MOTION for extension of time for plaintiffs to file any motion for attorney's fees filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 1/5/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 12/17/2014)

12/18/2014

22 ORDER GRANTING JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ANY MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES, 21 . Signed on 12/18/14 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 12/18/2014)

01/28/2015

23 Joint MOTION for extension of time for plaintiffs to file any motion for attorney's fees filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/17/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

24 WITHDRAWN PER 28 ORDER FILED ON FEBRUARY 11, 2015. MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of All Plaintiffs. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 2/17/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Declaration of Jonathan R. Whitehead, # 2 Exhibit B − Time Entries)(Whitehead, Jonathan) Modified on 2/12/2015 to reflect motion is withdrawn (Jones, Robin). (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/28/2015

25 SUGGESTIONS in support re 24 MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Jonathan R. Whitehead on behalf of Plaintiffs Dominic Ismert, Joseph N. Ismert, Joseph P. Ismert, Sioux Chief MFG. Co, Inc.. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Whitehead, Jonathan) (Entered: 01/28/2015)

01/29/2015

26 ORDER GRANTING SECOND JOINT MOTION TO EXTEND DEADLINE FOR PLAINTIFFS TO FILE ANY MOTION FOR ATTORNEY'S FEES 23 . Signed on 1/29/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 01/29/2015)

02/11/2015

27 Joint MOTION to withdraw document 24 MOTION for attorney fees pursuant to 42 USC 1988(b) filed by Michelle Bennett on behalf of All Defendants. Suggestions in opposition/response due by 3/2/2015 unless otherwise directed by the court. (Related document(s) 24 ) (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 02/11/2015)
Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 4 of 5

02/11/2015

28 ORDER GRANTING PARTIES' JOINT MOTION TO WITHDRAW PLAINTIFFS' MOTION FOR ATTORNEY FEES, 24 and 27 . Signed on 2/11/15 by District Judge Ortrie D. Smith. (Matthes, Renea) (Entered: 02/11/2015)

Case: 4:13-cv-36 As of: 11/09/2017 10:07 AM CST 5 of 5