Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 1 of 18

1

Jennifer Lee* Brigitte Amiri*

2 Alyson Zureick* American Civil Liberties Union

3 Foundation

125 Broad Street 4 New York, New York 10004

5

(212) 549-2633 jlee@aclu.org

6 bamiri@aclu.org azureick@aclu.org

7

Daniel Pochoda (AZ Bar No. 021979) 8 American Civil Liberties Union

9

Foundation of Arizona 3707 North 7th Street, Suite 235

10 Phoenix, Arizona 85014 (602) 650-1854

11 dpochoda@acluaz.org

Diana Salgado* Planned Parenthood Federation of America 434 West 33rd Street New York, New York 10001 (212) 541-7800 diana.salgado@ppfa.org
Daniel B. Pasternak (AZ Bar No. 023751) Laura Lawless Robertson (AZ Bar No. 023951) Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, Arizona 85004 (602) 528-4000 daniel.pasternak@squirepb.com laura.robertson@squirepb.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood of Arizona, Inc. and Jane Doe #1

12 Attorneys for Plaintiffs Desert Star Family

13

Planning, LLC, DeShawn Taylor, M.D., Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H, Jane Does #2-5

14 *Applications for admission pro hac
15 vice forthcoming

16

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

17

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

18 Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc.; Desert Star

19

Family Planning, LLC; Deshawn Taylor, M.D.; Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H.; Jane Does

20 #1-5,

21

22

v.

Plaintiffs,

23 Thomas Betlach, Director, Arizona

24

Health Care Cost Containment System, in his official capacity,

25

Defendant. 26

Civil Action No.
COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

27

28 1

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 2 of 18

1

Plaintiffs Planned Parenthood Arizona, Inc. (“PPAZ”), Desert Star Family

2 Planning, LLC (“Desert Star”), DeShawn Taylor, M.D., and Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H.,

3 (collectively, the “Provider Plaintiffs”), and Plaintiffs Jane Doe #1, Jane Doe #2, Jane Doe

4 #3, Jane Doe #4, and Jane Doe #5 (collectively, the “Jane Doe Plaintiffs”) (collectively,

5 with the Provider Plaintiffs, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, bring this

6 Complaint against Defendant Thomas Betlach in his official capacity as Director of the

7 Arizona Health Care Cost Containment System (“AHCCCS”).

8

INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT

9

1. This civil action is brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to vindicate rights

10 secured by the federal Medicaid statutes as well as the Due Process and Equal Protection

11 Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

12

2. Medicaid enrollees are guaranteed the right to receive covered services

13 from the qualified provider of their choice by federal law. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23).

14 In this case, the Provider Plaintiffs’ patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, choose to

15 receive care from the Provider Plaintiffs — highly qualified medical providers that

16 provide a range of reproductive health services, including abortion.

17

3. On May 17, 2016, Arizona Governor Doug Ducey signed into law Arizona

18 H.B. 2599, 2nd Regular Session, 52nd Legislature (2016). In direct violation of federal

19 law, a provision of H.B. 2599, to be codified at ARIZ. REV. STAT. § 36-2930.02(B)(6)

20 (“H.B. 2599” or “the Act”), attached hereto as Exhibit A, threatens to prevent the Provider

21 Plaintiffs’ patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, from obtaining critical, ongoing care

22 from the qualified providers of their choice.

23

4. Specifically, the Act empowers AHCCCS, the Medicaid agency in Arizona,

24 to exclude from participation in Arizona’s Medicaid program any “individual or entity”

25 that “[f]ailed to segregate taxpayer dollars from abortions, including the use of taxpayer

26 dollars for any overhead expenses attributable to abortions.” H.B. 2599. The federal

27 Medicaid statutes do not permit Arizona to impose this requirement as a condition of

28 2

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 3 of 18

1 participation in Medicaid. Unless enjoined, this impermissible requirement threatens to

2 exclude the Provider Plaintiffs from the Medicaid program, thereby restricting their ability

3 to provide — and their patients’, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs’, ability to access —

4 vital women’s health services.

5

5. This is not the first time that Arizona has attempted to restrict the right of

6 Medicaid participants to obtain health care from the qualified provider of their choice,

7 simply because those providers also provide abortions. In 2012, Arizona enacted House

8 Bill 2800 (“H.B. 2800”), 2nd Regular Session, 50th Legislature, codified at ARIZ. REV.

9 STAT. § 35-196.05. H.B. 2800 prohibited any person or entity that performs abortions —

10 other than in cases of rape, incest, or threats to the woman’s health or life — from

11 participating in Arizona’s Medicaid program. Plaintiffs PPAZ, Dr. Reuss, and three Jane

12 Doe plaintiffs challenged that law and sought injunctive and declaratory relief that H.B.

13 2800 violated the Medicaid statutes and the United States Constitution.

14

6. As a result, this Court enjoined the law, finding that “Arizona lacks [the]

15 authority . . . [to] restrict a beneficiary’s right to select any qualified provider for reasons

16 wholly unrelated to the provider’s ability to deliver Medicaid Services.” Planned

17 Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, 922 F. Supp. 2d 858, 864 (D. Ariz. 2013). On appeal,

18 the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that the “Arizona law

19 violates [federal Medicaid law] by precluding Medicaid patients from using medical

20 providers concededly qualified to perform family planning services to patients in Arizona

21 generally, solely on the basis that those providers separately perform privately funded,

22 legal, abortions.” Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960, 963 (9th Cir.

23 2013), cert. denied, 134 S. Ct. 1283 (2014). Undeterred by these unambiguous rulings,

24 Arizona enacted the instant Act as a thinly-veiled attempt to avoid the clear holding and

25 reasoning in Betlach.

26

7. As in Betlach, the Provider Plaintiffs are qualified to provide healthcare

27 services to their Medicaid patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, who depend on them

28 3

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 4 of 18

1 for that care. Yet once again, Arizona is attempting to bar the Provider Plaintiffs from

2 participating in the Medicaid program simply because they provide legal abortion services

3 to Arizona women.

4

8. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief. The Act

5 violates Section 1396a(a)(23) of the Medicaid Act because it threatens to prevent the

6 Provider Plaintiffs’ patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, from obtaining medical

7 care from their qualified provider of choice. The Act also violates the Provider Plaintiffs’

8 due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment because it does not give the Provider

9 Plaintiffs fair notice of what they must do to comply with the Act’s terms, thus placing

10 them at risk of arbitrary enforcement, and it also disqualifies Provider Plaintiffs from

11 receiving government funds because they provide constitutionally protected abortions.

12 Finally, the Act violates the Equal Protection Clause because it singles out for unfair

13 treatment only Medicaid providers who provide constitutionally protected abortions.

14 Because there is no adequate remedy at law for these ongoing harms, Plaintiffs require

15 injunctive relief.

16

9. The Act is scheduled to take effect on August 6, 2016. An injunction is

17 required to ensure that the Act does not cause significant and irreparable harm to the

18 Provider Plaintiffs and to their patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, who are at risk

19 of losing their provider of choice, having their reproductive healthcare interrupted, and —

20 particularly in certain underserved areas — being left with few or no alternative health

21 care providers.

22 I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

23

10. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331

24 and 1343.

25

11. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized by 28

26 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and

27 by the general legal and equitable powers of this Court.

28 4

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 5 of 18

1

12. Venue in this judicial district is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

2 II. THE PARTIES

3

A. Plaintiffs

4

13. Plaintiff PPAZ is a not-for-profit corporation organized under the laws of

5 Arizona. PPAZ brings this action on behalf of itself, its physicians who are Medicaid

6 providers, and its Medicaid patients. PPAZ is the largest provider of reproductive health

7 services in Arizona and operates eleven health centers throughout the state. For nearly 25

8 years, PPAZ has participated in the Medicaid program, providing medical services to low-

9 income enrollees, and has never been excluded from the Medicaid program. PPAZ

10 provides comprehensive reproductive health services to women throughout Arizona,

11 including pap smears, testing and treatment for sexually transmitted diseases, breast

12 exams, HPV immunizations, and contraceptives. PPAZ also provides abortions at four of

13 its health centers, and has received Medicaid reimbursements for certain medically

14 necessary abortion services in accordance with state and federal law. For the 12-month

15 period from June 1, 2014 through May 31, 2015, PPAZ provided services during more

16 than 45,000 family planning visits, approximately 5,000 of which were for Medicaid

17 patients.

18

14. Plaintiff Desert Star is a private physician practice located in Phoenix,

19 Arizona, which provides comprehensive family planning, well-woman care, basic men’s

20 sexual health services, abortion services, and miscarriage management. Desert Star has

21 served Medicaid patients since 2013, and has never been excluded from the Medicaid

22 program. Desert Star has received Medicaid reimbursements for certain medically

23 necessary abortion services in accordance with state and federal law. Plaintiff DeShawn

24 Taylor, M.D., is Desert Star’s owner and medical director, and is a board-certified

25 obstetrician-gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Arizona. She has been a

26 Medicaid provider since 2009 and has never been excluded from the Medicaid program.

27

28 5

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 6 of 18

1 Desert Star and Dr. Taylor sue on their own behalves and on behalf of their Medicaid

2 patients.

3

15. Plaintiff Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H., is a board-certified obstetrician-

4 gynecologist licensed to practice medicine in Arizona. He has a private, solo, general

5 obstetrics and gynecology practice, Scottsdale Obstetrics & Gynecology, P.C., in

6 Scottsdale, Arizona. Dr. Reuss provides his patients with the full range of general

7 obstetrics and gynecology care, including well-woman care; prenatal care; labor and

8 delivery care; family planning services; and abortion care. Dr. Reuss has participated in

9 the Medicaid program since 2001 and has never been excluded from the Medicaid

10 program. Dr. Reuss sues on his own behalf and on behalf of his Medicaid patients.

11

16. Each of the physician Provider Plaintiffs has professional medical licenses

12 that they wish to preserve in good standing so that they may practice their profession.

13

17. Plaintiff Jane Doe #1 is an Arizona resident and Medicaid patient who has

14 been a longtime patient of PPAZ, where she has received well-woman exams, STI

15 screenings, and contraceptives. She wishes to continue to obtain her reproductive health

16 care from PPAZ, including contraceptive counseling, contraception, and her well-woman

17 exams. She sues on her own behalf.

18

18. Plaintiff Jane Doe #2 is an Arizona resident and Medicaid patient who is

19 currently pregnant and receiving prenatal care from Dr. Reuss and is due to be delivered

20 by Dr. Reuss in September 2016. Leading up to her due date she will continue to have

21 monthly, then bi-weekly, then weekly prenatal appointments. After her baby is born she

22 intends to receive postnatal care from Dr. Reuss. She sues on her own behalf.

23

19. Plaintiff Jane Doe #3 is an Arizona resident and Medicaid patient who is

24 currently pregnant and receiving prenatal care from Dr. Reuss and is due to have her baby

25 delivered by Dr. Reuss in November 2016. Leading up to her due date she will continue

26 to have monthly, then bi-weekly, then weekly prenatal appointments. After her baby is

27

28 6

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 7 of 18

1 born she intends to receive postnatal and general gynecological care, including her well-

2 woman exams, from Dr. Reuss. She sues on her own behalf.

3

20. Plaintiff Jane Doe #4 is an Arizona resident and Medicaid patient who has

4 been a longtime patient of Dr. Reuss, from whom she receives her annual well-woman

5 exams, pap smears, STI testing, and prescriptions for birth control. Her last appointment

6 with Dr. Reuss was in June 2016, and she plans to return in June 2017 for her next annual

7 exam. She sues on her own behalf.

8

21. Plaintiff Jane Doe #5 is an Arizona resident and Medicaid patient and has

9 received care from Dr. Taylor at Desert Star in the past. She is in the process of enrolling

10 in a different managed care organization so that she may obtain reproductive care from

11 Desert Star in the future. She plans to obtain a well-woman exam at Desert Star this fall.

12 She sues on her own behalf.

13

22. Each of the Jane Doe Plaintiffs appears pseudonymously because of the

14 private and personal nature of the medical care she receives, and she desires to assert her

15 legal rights without having to disclose private medical information.

16

B. Defendant

17

23. Defendant Thomas J. Betlach is the Director of AHCCCS, the agency that

18 administers Arizona’s Medicaid program, and which, under the Act, is authorized to

19 terminate the Provider Plaintiffs’ participation in the Medicaid program and,

20 consequently, prevent their patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, from obtaining

21 covered health care services from their willing, qualified Medicaid provider of choice.

22 Defendant Betlach is sued in his official capacity.

23 III. FACTS

24

A. The Medicaid Program

25

24. The Medicaid program, established under Title XIX of the Social Security

26 Act of 1935, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., pays for medical coverage provided to eligible

27 people based upon their income. A State may elect whether to participate, but if it

28 7

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 8 of 18

1 chooses to do so, it must comply with the requirements imposed by the Medicaid statutes,

2 the applicable regulations, and the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human

3 Services (“HHS”) in her administration of the Medicaid statute. See generally 42 U.S.C. §

4 1396a(a)(1)–(83).

5

25. To receive federal funding, a participating state must develop a “plan for

6 medical assistance” and submit it to the Secretary of HHS for approval. 42 U.S.C.

7 § 1396a(a).

8

26. Among other requirements, the state plan must provide that: “[A]ny

9 individual eligible for medical assistance … may obtain such assistance from any

10 institution, agency, community pharmacy, or person, qualified to perform the service or

11 services required … who undertakes to provide him such services.” 42

12 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(23)(A). This is known as the free choice of provider requirement.

13

27. Congress has singled out family planning services for special additional

14 protections to ensure freedom of choice of provider, specifically providing that, with

15 respect to those services and with certain limited exceptions not applicable here, an

16 individual’s enrollment “in a primary care case-management system … , a [M]edicaid

17 managed care organization, or a similar entity shall not restrict the choice of the qualified

18 person from whom the individual may receive [family planning] services.” 42 U.S.C.

19 § 1396a(a)(23)(B); see also 42 C.F.R. § 431.51(b)(2) (same).

20

28. For decades, Congress has attached a rider to HHS’s appropriations

21 blocking the use of federal Medicaid funds for abortion, except in limited circumstances.

22 See Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2016, Pub. L. No. 114-113, §§ 506-507, 129 Stat.

23 2242, 2649 (2015). However, the Medicaid statutes do not prohibit entities that provide

24 abortion services from receiving Medicaid funds to provide non-abortion services.

25

29. Moreover, neither the Medicaid statutes nor the implementing regulations

26 include an exception to the freedom of choice provision that would allow states to exclude

27

28 8

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 9 of 18

1 providers from participating in the Medicaid program based on those providers’ ability to

2 segregate public funds.

3

B. Implementation of the Medicaid Statutes

4

30. For decades, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (“CMS”), the

5 agency within HHS that administers Medicaid (and its predecessor organization), has

6 repeatedly interpreted the “qualified” language in § 1396a(a)(23) to prohibit states from

7 denying Medicaid participants access to a provider for reasons unrelated to the ability of

8 that provider to perform Medicaid-covered services or to properly bill for those services,

9 including reasons such as the scope of the medical services that the provider chooses to

10 offer.

11

31. CMS has explained that “[t]he purpose of the free choice provision is to

12 allow [Medicaid] recipients the same opportunities to choose among available providers

13 of covered health care and services as are normally offered to the general population.”

14 CTRS. FOR MEDICARE & MEDICAID SERVS., CMS MANUALS PUBLICATION #45, STATE

15 MEDICAID MANUAL, § 2100.

16

32. HHS has a long history of rejecting state plans that restrict the type of

17 provider that can provide particular services. See, e.g., 53 Fed. Reg. 8699 (Mar. 16, 1988)

18 (rejecting plan that would limit providers to “private nonprofit” organizations); 67 Fed.

19 Reg. 79121 (Dec. 27, 2002) (noting disapproval of a state plan amendment that would

20 have limited “beneficiary choice … by imposing standards that are not reasonably related

21 to the qualifications of providers”). For example, in 2011, CMS rejected an Indiana plan

22 that barred state agencies from contracting with or making grants to any entities that

23 performed abortions because it violated the Medicaid freedom of choice provision. Letter

24 from Donald M. Berwick, Adm’r., CMS, to Patricia Casanova, Dir., Ind. Office of

25 Medicaid

Policy

and

Planning

(June

1,

2011),

26 http://www.politico.com/static/PPM169_110601_indiana_letter.html.

27

28 9

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 10 of 18

1

33. CMS is permitted to waive § 1396a(a)(23) in demonstration projects

2 approved under Social Security Act § 1115. However, such waivers cannot extend to the

3 free choice of provider requirement as applied to family planning services. 42 U.S.C.

4 § 1396a(a)(23)(B); see also 42 C.F.R. § 431.51(b)(2). Accordingly, CMS regularly rejects

5 state requests to do so for family planning services.

6

34. In just the last two years, CMS has rejected two such state requests: first in

7 Pennsylvania, see Letter from Marilyn Tavenner, Adm’r, CMS, to Beverly Mackereth,

8 Sec’y, Pa. Dep’t of Pub. Welfare (Aug. 28, 2014), http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-

9 CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/pa/pa-healthy-ca.pdf

10 (“No waiver of freedom of choice is authorized for family planning providers.”); and more

11 recently in Iowa, see Letter from Vikki Wachino, Dir., CMS, to Mikki Stier, Medicaid

12 Dir., Iowa Dep’t of Human Servs. (July 31, 2015), http://www.medicaid.gov/Medicaid-

13 CHIP-Program-Information/By-Topics/Waivers/1115/downloads/ia/ia-marketplace-

14 choice-plan-ca.pdf (“No waiver of freedom of choice is authorized for family planning

15 providers.”).

16

35. Moreover, the federal government has repeatedly made clear to states,

17 including Arizona, that attempts to exclude abortion providers from the Medicaid program

18 are barred by the Medicaid statutes.

19

36. In Betlach, the federal government filed an amicus brief in the appeal of the

20 preliminary injunction barring Arizona from enforcing the 2012 defunding attempt. In its

21 brief, the government explained that Arizona’s statute violated the free choice of provider

22 requirement because it excluded qualified providers that perform abortions from the

23 Medicaid program, and that providing abortions does not render a provider otherwise

24 unqualified to provide Medicaid services. Brief for the United States, as Amicus Curiae

25 Supporting Appellees, Planned Parenthood Ariz., Inc. v. Betlach, 727 F.3d 960 (9th Cir.

26 2013) (No. 12-17558), 2013 WL 663789. The federal government filed a similar brief in

27 the Fifth Circuit in a case challenging Louisiana’s attempt to exclude abortion providers

28 10

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 11 of 18

1 from its Medicaid program. See Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae, Planned

2 Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Gee, No. 15-30987 (5th Cir. 2016).

3

37. In April 2016, after a wave of Medicaid defunding efforts of abortion

4 providers by states across the country, CMS sent a letter to all State Medicaid Directors,

5 including Defendant. CMS again made clear that the free choice of provider requirement

6 limits a state’s authority to take action against a Medicaid provider unless the action

7 relates to a provider’s “fitness” to provide covered services, meaning the provider’s

8 “capability to perform the required services in a professionally competent, safe, legal, and

9 ethical manner — or the ability of the provider to appropriately bill for those services.”

10 Letter from Vikki Wachino, Dir. CMS to State Medicaid Directors (Apr. 19, 2016),

11 https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policy-guidance/downloads/smd16005.pdf.

12

38. The letter further stated that proper reasons for such actions “may not

13 include a desire to target a provider or set of providers for reasons unrelated to their fitness

14 to perform covered services or the adequacy of their billing practices. The failure of a

15 state to apply otherwise reasonable standards in an evenhanded manner may suggest such

16 targeting.” Id. In addition, if a state takes an action against a provider that affects

17 beneficiary access to the provider, this action “must be supported by evidence of fraud or

18 criminal action, material non-compliance with relevant requirements, or material issues

19 concerning the fitness of the provider to perform covered services or appropriately bill for

20 them.” Id. As CMS made clear, “taking such action against a provider without such

21 evidence would not be in compliance with the free choice of provider requirement.” Id.

22 Every federal court, including the Ninth Circuit in Betlach, that has heard a challenge to a

23 state’s action to bar abortion providers from their Medicaid program has held that states

24 may not bar medical providers from their state Medicaid program on grounds unrelated to

25 the providers’ willingness and ability to provide covered health services or properly bill

26 for those services. See, e.g., Planned Parenthood of Ind., Inc. v. Comm’r of Ind. State

27 Dep’t of Health, 699 F.3d 962, 977-80 (7th Cir. 2012), Planned Parenthood of Kan. and

28 11

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 12 of 18

1 Mid-Mo. v. Mosier, No. 16-2284-JAR-GLR, 2016 WL 3597457 at *18-20 (D. Kan. July 5,

2 2016); Planned Parenthood Gulf Coast, Inc. v. Kliebert, 141 F. Supp. 3d 604, 637-40

3 (M.D. La. 2015); Planned Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley, 141 F. Supp. 3d 1207, 1213-19

4 (M.D. Ala. 2015); Planned Parenthood Ark. & E. Okla. v. Selig, No. 4:15-cv-00566-KGB

5 (E.D. Ark. Oct. 5, 2015) (order granting plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction).

6

C. The Act - H.B. 2599

7

39. The Act requires medical providers to “segregate taxpayer dollars from

8 abortions, including the use of taxpayer dollars for any overhead expenses attributable to

9 abortions,” as a condition of participation in Arizona’s Medicaid program. ARIZ. REV.

10 STAT. § 36-2930.02(B)(6) (effective Aug. 6, 2016). If a provider fails to comply with the

11 segregation requirement, AHCCCS “in its sole discretion, may exclude [that provider]

12 from participation” in the state Medicaid program. Id. Arizona law does not require

13 providers of any other medical procedure to segregate public funds in this manner.

14

40. The Provider Plaintiffs have never been charged with or disciplined for

15 using Medicaid funds to pay for non-Medicaid qualified abortions.

16

41. The Act does not define the phrase “segregate taxpayer dollars from

17 abortions, including the use of taxpayer dollars for any overhead expenses attributable to

18 abortions,” nor does it explain how Medicaid providers are expected to comply with the

19 provision.

20

42. Moreover, Arizona law requires AHCCCS to reimburse Medicaid providers

21 for abortion procedures when the patient is the victim of rape or incest, the abortion is

22 necessary to save the patient’s life, or the abortion is medically necessary to preserve the

23 patient’s health. See Simat Corp. v. AHCCCS, 203 Ariz. 454, 56 P.3d 28 (2002); ARIZ.

24 REV. STAT. § 35-196.02(A). The Act does not explain how Medicaid providers are

25 expected to “segregate taxpayer dollars from abortions” in these cases where the law

26 requires AHCCCS to reimburse providers for abortion care.

27

28 12

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 13 of 18

1

43. Because the Act’s terms are unclear, it places Provider Plaintiffs at risk of

2 arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. This risk is particularly acute because Arizona

3 has a long history of targeting abortion providers, like the Provider Plaintiffs, for unfair

4 treatment: indeed, just since 2012, Arizona has passed no fewer than eight laws targeting

5 such providers for unjustified regulation, scrutiny, and differential treatment from other

6 medical providers.

7

44. Furthermore, AHCCCS is empowered to enforce the Act with almost no

8 notice to the Provider Plaintiffs. AHCCCS “has the right to terminate or suspend” the

9 Provider Plaintiffs’ participation in the state Medicaid program “upon twenty-four (24)

10 hours written notice when AHCCCS deems … the Provider fails to comply … with …

11 State laws and regulations.” ARIZ. HEALTH CARE COST CONTAINMENT SYS., PROVIDER

12 PARTICIPATION

AGREEMENT

(2014),

https://www.azahcccs.gov/Plans

13 Providers/Downloads/ProviderRegistration/ProviderPartAgreementForm.pdf.

14

45. Because of the Act’s vague terms, counsel for the Provider Plaintiffs

15 submitted a letter to AHCCCS on May 31, 2016, shortly after the Act was signed into law,

16 seeking clarity as to the Act’s terms and AHCCCS’s interpretation of those terms. The

17 letter also sought to confirm that no action would be taken to exclude any provider under

18 the Act until additional guidance was provided. As of the date of filing this Complaint,

19 counsel for Provider Plaintiffs has not received a response to that letter.

20

D. The Impact of the Act on the Provider Plaintiffs and Their Patients

21

46. The Act threatens to exclude the Provider Plaintiffs from the Medicaid

22 program because of a requirement the state is prohibited by federal law from imposing.

23

47. Exclusion from the Medicaid program for cause carries potentially serious,

24 negative consequences for the Provider Plaintiffs, particularly the individual physician

25 providers who could suffer adverse actions against their professional licenses.

26

48. Moreover, the Act places the Provider Plaintiffs’ patients, including the

27 Jane Doe Plaintiffs, in a state of continual risk of being deprived of their choice of

28 13

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 14 of 18

1 provider. Consequently, the Act undermines Medicaid patients’ rights to access the

2 provider of their choice and their continuity of care, and threatens to constrict the

3 availability of critical reproductive health services in Arizona.

4

49. The need for publicly supported family planning services is great in

5 Arizona. In 2013, an estimated 458,900 women in Arizona were in need of publicly

6 supported family planning services. Guttmacher Inst., State Facts on Publicly Funded

7 Family

Planning

Services:

Arizona

(2014),

8 https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/az_13.pdf. In 2010, 51% of

9 pregnancies in Arizona were unintended, and nearly 65% of unplanned births in Arizona

10 were publicly funded. Guttmacher Inst., State Facts About Unintended Pregnancy:

11 Arizona (2016), https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/factsheet/az_18.pdf.

12 Arizona also ranks eighteenth among fifty states in teen pregnancy rates. Kathryn Kost &

13 Stanley Henshaw, U.S. Teenage Pregnancies, Births and Abortions, 2010: National and

14 State Trends by Age, Race and Ethnicity, GUTTMACHER INSTITUTE (2014),

15 https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/report_pdf/ustptrends10.pdf.

16

50. In spite of the great needs, there are simply not enough providers of the

17 critical care that the Provider Plaintiffs provide. Three of PPAZ’s eleven medical centers

18 are in areas that the federal government has classified as “medically underserved” based

19 on four variables: (1) the ratio of primary medical care physicians per 1,000 population,

20 (2) the infant mortality rate, (3) the percentage of the population with incomes below the

21 federal poverty level, and (4) the percentage of the population age 65 or older. See U.S.

22 DEP’T OF HEALTH & HUM. SERVS., GUIDELINES FOR MUA AND MUP DESIGNATION

23 (1995), http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/mua/index.html.

24

51. In addition, Desert Star and three of PPAZ’s centers are in areas classified

25 as “low provider,” a designation based on similar criteria. See U.S. DEP’T OF HEALTH &

26 HUM. SERVS., SHORTAGE DESIGNATION: HEALTH PROFESSIONAL SHORTAGE AREAS &

27 MEDICALLY UNDERSERVED AREAS/POPULATIONS, 2015, http://www.hrsa.gov/shortage/.

28 14

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 15 of 18

1

52. If the Act is enforced against the Provider Plaintiffs, many of the Medicaid

2 patients in these areas will have few or no alternative options and will find it difficult or

3 impossible to access the high-quality reproductive health care services PPAZ and Desert

4 Star provide. Medicaid patients who are unable to find an adequate alternative will not

5 receive the medical services they need, an effect that could lead to higher rates of

6 unintended pregnancies and transmission of sexual diseases.

7

53. Even if other Medicaid providers were available, patients insured through

8 Medicaid choose to receive their reproductive health care from the Provider Plaintiffs for

9 a number of reasons. For example, some patients prefer to obtain care from the Provider

10 Plaintiffs because they offer a wide range of high-quality reproductive health care services

11 in a non-judgmental setting. In addition, other patients who are low-income prefer to seek

12 care from those Provider Plaintiffs that are able to accommodate their scheduling

13 constraints due to inflexible work schedules, childcare obligations, transportation

14 challenges, and lack of childcare resources, by offering extended hours and walk-in

15 appointments. Finally, patients who do not speak English prefer to obtain care from the

16 Provider Plaintiffs that either have Spanish speaking staff or provide translator services,

17 including for less commonly encountered languages.

18

54. The Act’s consequences loom particularly large for many of Dr. Reuss’s

19 Medicaid patients who are pregnant and receiving ongoing prenatal care and intend to be

20 delivered by Dr. Reuss and receive subsequent postnatal care. If the Act is enforced and

21 Dr. Reuss is terminated as a Medicaid provider, these women may struggle to find an

22 alternative obstetrician to accept them as a new patient, as many obstetricians will not

23 accept new patients who are late in pregnancy.

24

55. Another particularly vulnerable group would be those women in need of

25 Medicaid-funded abortions because their pregnancy either is the result of rape or incest or

26 poses certain risks to her health or life. If enforced, the Act would leave these women —

27

28 15

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 16 of 18

1 who are already in tragic circumstances — with no place to obtain a Medicaid-funded

2 abortion.

3 IV. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

4

CLAIM I

5

MEDICAID ACT (TITLE XIX OF SOCIAL SECURITY ACT)

6

56. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraphs 1 through 55 above.

7

57. The Act violates Section 1396a(a)(23) of Title 42 of the United States Code

8 by denying the Provider Plaintiffs’ patients, including the Jane Doe Plaintiffs, the right to

9 choose any willing, qualified healthcare provider under the Medicaid program.

10

58. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court should declare the Act

11 illegal and preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of the Act.

12

CLAIM II

13

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS – VAGUENESS

59. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraph 1 through 55 above. 14

60. The Act violates the Provider Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights to 15

due process because it is impermissibly vague, fails to give fair notice of the conduct that 16

is required, and encourages arbitrary enforcement. 17

61. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court should declare the Act 18

to be unconstitutional and should preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of the 19

Act. 20

CLAIM III

21

FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT EQUAL PROTECTION

22

62. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraph 1 through 55 above.

23

63. The Act violates the Provider Plaintiffs’ Fourteenth Amendment rights by

24 singling them out without adequate justification for unfavorable treatment because they

25 provide a constitutionally protected health service.

26

27

28 16

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 17 of 18

1

64. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court should declare the Act

2 to be unconstitutional and should preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of the

3 Act. 4 5

CLAIM IV FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS –
UNCONSTITUTIONAL CONDITION

6

65. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate Paragraph 1 through 55 above.

7

66. The Act violates rights guaranteed to Provider Plaintiffs and their patients

8 by the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution because it denies certain

9 government funds to the Provider Plaintiffs because of — and in retaliation for — their

10 exercise of their own constitutionally protected right to provide and their patients’ exercise

11 of the constitutional right to choose to have an abortion.

12

67. Therefore, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this Court should declare the Act

13 to be unconstitutional and should preliminarily and permanently enjoin enforcement of the

14 Act.

15 V. RELIEF REQUESTED

16

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that this Court:

17

1. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the Medicaid statutes and

18 is therefore void and of no effect;

19

2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the Due Process Clause

20 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is therefore void and of no

21 effect;

22

3. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the Equal Protection

23 Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is therefore void and of

24 no effect;

25

4. Issue a declaratory judgment that the Act violates the Due Process Clause

26 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and is therefore void and of no

27 effect;

28 17

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 1 Filed 07/14/16 Page 18 of 18

1

5. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief, without bond, restraining

2 the enforcement, operation, and execution of the Act by enjoining Defendant, his agents,

3 employees, appointees, delegatees, or successors from enforcing, threatening to enforce,

4 or otherwise applying the provisions of the Act;

5

6. Grant Plaintiffs attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses pursuant to 42 U.S.C.

6 § 1988; and

7

7. Grant such further relief as this Court deems just and proper.

8 9 DATED:

July 14, 2016

10

Jennifer Lee* 11 Brigitte Amiri*

12 Alyson Zureick* American Civil Liberties Union

13 Foundation

14

125 Broad Street, 18th Floor New York, NY 10004

15 (212) 549-2633

jlee@aclu.org 16 bamiri@aclu.org

17 azureick@aclu.org

/s/ Laura Lawless Robertson Daniel B. Pasternak Laura Lawless Robertson Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 (602) 528-4000 daniel.pasternak@squirepb.com laura.robertson@squirepb.com

18 Daniel Pochoda

Diana Salgado*

19

American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Arizona

Planned Parenthood Federation of America 434 W. 33rd Street,

20 3707 N. 7th Street, Suite 235

New York, NY 10001

Phoenix, AZ 85014 21 (602) 650-1854

(212) 541-7800 diana.salgado@ppfa.org

22 dpochoda@acluaz.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs Desert Star Family Attorneys for Plaintiffs Planned

23 Planning, LLC, DeShawn Taylor, M.D., Parenthood of Arizona, Inc. and

24 Eric Reuss, M.D., M.P.H, Jane Does #2-5 Jane Doe #1

25

* Applications for admission pro

hac vice forthcoming

26

27

28 18

010-8240-6455/1/AMERICAS

 
 Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/07/16 Page 1 of 2

1

2

3

4

5

6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8

9 Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, et No. CV-16-02337-PHX-ROS al.,

10 Plaintiffs,
11

ORDER

v. 12

Thomas Betlach, 13

14

Defendant.

15

Pursuant to the Parties’ Stipulation of Dismissal without Prejudice and Agreement

16 of Nonenforcement,

17

IT IS ORDERED the stipulation (Doc. 18) is GRANTED. This case is dismissed

18 without prejudice.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED:

20

1. Defendant or his successor shall not enforce H.B. 2599 as to Plaintiffs until

21 regulations promulgated pursuant to H.B. 2599(D) take effect.

22

2. A representative of Defendant shall email counsel, Jennifer Lee at

23 jlee@aclu.org, and Diana Salgado at diana.salgado@ppfa.org, to advise when the

24 proposed rules under H.B. 2599(D) are filed for public comment.

25

3. Arizona Revised Statute 41-1032 provides that state administrative rules do not

26 become effective until 60 days following the filing of the final rule with the Arizona

27 Secretary of State unless an immediate effective date is approved by the Arizona

28 Governor’s Regulatory Review Council. Defendant or any successor shall not request an

Case 2:16-cv-02337-ROS Document 19 Filed 09/07/16 Page 2 of 2

1 immediate effective date. Nothing in this Order precludes Plaintiffs from challenging the

2 final rules at any time.

3

4. Any steps, actions, or efforts taken by Defendant or his successor to enforce

4 H.B. 2599 as to Plaintiffs shall be based only on Plaintiffs’ conduct occurring on or after

5 the effective date of the final rules.

6

5. Neither party is a prevailing party pursuant to this Order. Should Plaintiffs file

7 a related lawsuit to challenge and seek appropriate relief from the Segregation Provision

8 and/or the final rules, and should Plaintiffs prevail in their challenge to the Segregation

9 Provision and/or the final rules, nothing in this Order precludes Plaintiff from seeking

10 attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses for the prosecution of this lawsuit. Nothing in this

11 Order precludes Defendant from objecting to any attorneys’ fees, costs, or expenses

12 Plaintiffs may seek.

13

6. Nothing in this Order precludes the parties from jointly requesting the Court to

14 modify the terms of this Order.

15

7. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of this Order.

16

Dated this 6th day of September, 2016.

17

18

19

Honorable Roslyn O. Silver

20

Senior United States District Judge

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

 
 Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 1 of 6
U.S. District Court DISTRICT OF ARIZONA (Phoenix Division) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:16−cv−02337−ROS

CLOSED,STD

Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated et al v. Betlach Assigned to: Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 07/14/2016 Date Terminated: 09/07/2016 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated

represented by Daniel Benjamin Pasternak Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−528−4000 Fax: 602−253−8129 Email: daniel.pasternak@squirepb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Salgado Planned Parenthood Federation of America − New York, NY 123 William St. New York, NY 10038 212−541−7800 Fax: 212−247−6811 Email: diana.salgado@ppfa.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Lawless Robertson Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP − Phoenix, AZ 1 E Washington St., Ste. 2700 Phoenix, AZ 85004 602−528−4000 Fax: 602−253−8129 Email: laura.robertson@squirepb.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Alyson Zureick ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2633 Fax: 212−549−2651 Email: azureick@aclu.org TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff Desert Star Family Planning LLC

represented by Alyson Zureick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brigitte Amiri

Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 2 of 6

ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2633 Fax: 212−549−2651 Email: bamiri@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: dpochoda@acluaz.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−549−2633 Fax: 212−549−2651 Email: jlee@aclu.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen E Brody ACLU − Phoenix, AZ P.O. Box 17148 Phoenix, AZ 85011 602−650−1854 Fax: 602−650−1376 Email: kbrody@acluaz.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
DeShawn Taylor M.D.

represented by Alyson Zureick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brigitte Amiri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 3 of 6

Plaintiff
Eric Reuss M.D., M.P.H.

represented by Alyson Zureick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brigitte Amiri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Unknown Parties named as Jane Does #2−5

represented by Alyson Zureick (See above for address) TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Brigitte Amiri (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Daniel Joseph Pochoda (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Jennifer Lee (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
Unknown Party named as Jane Doe #1

represented by Daniel Benjamin Pasternak (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Diana Salgado (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Laura Lawless Robertson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 4 of 6

Alyson Marie Zureick ACLU − New York, NY 125 Broad St., 18th Fl. New York, NY 10004 212−284−7351 Fax: 212−549−2651 Email: azureick@aclu.org TERMINATED: 08/22/2016 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Kathleen E Brody (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V.
Defendant
Thomas Betlach Director, Arizona Health Care Containment System, in his official capacity

Date Filed 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/14/2016 07/15/2016 07/15/2016 07/15/2016
07/18/2016

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT. Filing fee received: $ 400.00, receipt number 0970−13175472 filed by Eric Reuss, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, DeShawn Taylor, Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Unknown Parties. (Submitted by Laura Robertson) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Civil Cover Sheet)(LAD) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
2 SUMMONS Submitted by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties. (Submitted by Laura Robertson) (LAD) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
3 Corporate Disclosure Statement by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties. (LAD) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
4 Filing fee paid, receipt number 0970−13175472. This case has been assigned to the Honorable Roslyn O Silver. All future pleadings or documents should bear the correct case number: CV−16−02337−PHX−ROS. Notice of Availability of Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction form attached. (LAD) (Entered: 07/14/2016)
5 Summons Issued as to Thomas Betlach. (LAD). *** IMPORTANT: When printing the summons, select "Document and stamps" or "Document and comments" for the seal to appear on the document. (Entered: 07/14/2016)
6 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Brigitte A Amiri by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties. (Amiri, Brigitte) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
7 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Jennifer K Lee by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties. (Lee, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
8 ORDER that motions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b) are discouraged if the defect can be cured by filing an amended pleading. The parties must meet and confer prior to the filing of such motions to determine whether it can be avoided. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff(s) serve a copy of this Order upon Defendant(s) and file a notice of service. See attached Order for complete details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 7/15/16. (CLB) (Entered: 07/15/2016)
9 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Diana Salgado by Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated. (Salgado, Diana) (Entered: 07/18/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 5 of 6

07/19/2016 07/19/2016 07/19/2016
07/20/2016
07/26/2016 07/26/2016 07/26/2016
07/29/2016
08/02/2016 08/04/2016 08/18/2016 08/22/2016

PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX174146 as to Brigitte Amiri, Diana Salgado. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX174147 as to Jennifer Lee. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
10 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 6 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice; granting 7 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/19/2016)
11 SERVICE EXECUTED filed by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties, Unknown Party: Acceptance of Service re: Complaint, Summons, Plaintiffs' Corporate Disclosure Agreements, Notice of Availability of US Magistrate Judge to Exercise Jurisdiction, Court's July 15, 2016 Order concerning Rule 12 motions upon Matthew J. Devlin on behalf of Defendant Thomas Betlach on 07/20/2016. (Lee, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/20/2016)
12 MOTION for Admission Pro Hac Vice as to attorney Alyson Zureick on behalf of plaintiffs Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties, and Unknown Party. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX174380 as to Alyson Zureick. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
13 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 12 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/26/2016)
14 ORDER pursuant to General Order 09−08 granting 9 Motion for Admission Pro Hac Vice. Per the Court's Administrative Policies and Procedures Manual, applicant has five (5) days in which to register as a user of the Electronic Filing System. Registration to be accomplished via the court's website at www.azd.uscourts.gov. Counsel is advised that they are limited to two (2) additional e−mail addresses in their District of Arizona User Account. (BAS) (This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no.pdf document associated with this entry.) (Entered: 07/29/2016)
PRO HAC VICE FEE PAID. $ 35, receipt number PHX174674 as to Diana Salgado. This is a TEXT ENTRY ONLY. There is no PDF document associated with this entry. (BAS) (Entered: 08/02/2016)
15 NOTICE of Appearance by Kathleen E Brody on behalf of Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Party. (Brody, Kathleen) (Entered: 08/04/2016)
16 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney Alyson Zureick by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties, Unknown Party. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Zureick, Alyson) (Entered: 08/18/2016)
17 ORDER granting 16 Motion to Withdraw as Attorney. Attorney Alyson Zureickis withdrawn as counsel in this action. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O. Silver on 8/22/16.(CLB) (Entered: 08/22/2016)

Case: 2:16-cv-2337 As of: 03/13/2017 10:41 AM MST 6 of 6

09/01/2016 09/07/2016

18 STIPULATION of Dismissal without Prejudice and Agreement of Nonenforcement by Desert Star Family Planning LLC, Planned Parenthood Arizona Incorporated, Eric Reuss, DeShawn Taylor, Unknown Parties, Unknown Party. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Lee, Jennifer) (Entered: 09/01/2016)
19 ORDER granting 18 Stipulation of Dismissal. This case is dismissed without prejudice. See PDF for details. Signed by Senior Judge Roslyn O Silver on 9/6/16. (DXD) (Entered: 09/07/2016)