Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-2253

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

Defendants. _______________________________________/

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Plaintiffs, Milton Fred Hartenbower, Catherine A. Hartenbower, Hart Electric LLC, and

H.I. Cable LLC, d/b/a H.I. Hart LLC, by and through their attorneys, bring this complaint against

Defendants, United States Department of Health and Human Services, Secretary Kathleen

Sebelius, United States Department of the Treasury, Secretary Jack Lew, United States

Department of Labor, and Acting Secretary Seth Harris, and their successors in office, and in

support thereof allege the following on information and belief:

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID #:2
INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiffs seek judicial review of Defendants’ violations of constitutional and statutory provisions in connection with the Defendants’ promulgation and implementation of certain regulations adopted under the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (hereafter, “PPACA”), specifically those regulations mandating that non-exempt employers pay for, as part of employee health benefit plans, certain goods and services, regardless of whether paying for such goods and services violates the employer’s religious and moral values. 2. Specifically, Plaintiffs ask this Court for declaratory and injunctive relief from the operation of regulations confirmed and promulgated by the Defendants on February 15, 2012, mandating that group health plans include coverage, without cost-sharing, for “all Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity” in plan years beginning on or after August 1, 2012 (hereafter, “the Mandate”), see 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv), as confirmed at 77 Fed. Register 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012), adopting and quoting Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) Guidelines found at http://www.hrsa.gov/womensguidelines. 3. Plaintiffs Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower are adherents of the Catholic faith. As equal shareholders who together own a controlling interest in Plaintiff Hart Electric, LLC and Plaintiff H.I. Hart, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower wish to conduct their businesses in a manner that does not violate the principles of their religious faith. 4. Plaintiffs’ Catholic beliefs include the belief that human life is a sacred gift from God and that individuals are not permitted to cause, or pay for, directly or indirectly, the intentional, unjustified termination of such life. Plaintiffs’ Catholic beliefs also include the belief that contraception and sterilization are immoral.
2

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID #:3
5. Plaintiffs Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower have concluded that complying with the Mandate would require them to violate their religious beliefs because the Mandate requires them and/or the businesses they control to arrange for, pay for, provide, facilitate, or otherwise support not only contraception and sterilization, but also abortion, because certain drugs and devices such as the “morning-after pill,” “Plan B,” and “Ella” come within the Mandate’s and HRSA’s definition of “Food and Drug Administration-approved contraceptive methods” despite their known abortifacient mechanisms of action.
6. Plaintiffs contend that the Mandate requires them either to comply with the Mandate and violate their religious beliefs or not comply with the Mandate, in order to conduct their businesses in a manner consistent with their religion, and pay ruinous fines and penalties. Accordingly, the Mandate violates their rights under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, and the Administrative Procedure Act.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 7. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343(a)(4), and 1346(a)(2) because it is a civil action against agencies and officials of the United States based on claims arising under the Constitution, laws of the United States, and regulations of executive departments and it seeks equitable or other relief under an Act of Congress, and also pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1361 as this Court may compel officers and agencies of the United States to perform a duty owed Plaintiffs. 8. This Court has jurisdiction to render declaratory and injunctive relief pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 702, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-2202, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb-1, and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 57 and 65. 9. Venue is appropriate in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(e)(1)(B)-(C) because Plaintiffs reside in this district, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving
3

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID #:4
rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district. 10. This court has the authority to award Plaintiffs their costs and attorneys’ fees
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2412 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988. PARTIES Plaintiffs
11. Plaintiffs Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower are individuals and citizens of the State of Illinois and the United States.
12. Milton Fred Hartenbower owns a 100% ownership interest in Plaintiff Hart Electric LLC. The Hartenbowers are in the process of changing the ownership interest in Hart Electric so that Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower would each have a 50% interest.
13. Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower are the only Directors of Hart Electric and together they set the policies governing the conduct of all phases of Hart Electric’s business and operations.
14. Hart Electric is a family-owned business that manufactures wire harnesses, battery cables and electrical components. Its offices are located at 102 South Main Street, Lostant, Illinois, in LaSalle County. It is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois.
15. Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower each hold a 50% ownership interest in Plaintiff H.I. Cable, LLC, d/b/a H.I. Hart, LLC and are thus equal shareholders who together own a controlling interest in H.I. Hart.
16. Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower are the only Directors of H.I. Hart, and together they set the policies governing the conduct of all phases of H.I. Hart’s business and operations.
17. Plaintiff H.I. Hart is a family-owned cable television and internet provider. Its 4

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID #:5
offices are located at 102 South Main Street, Lostant, Illinois, in LaSalle County. It is incorporated under the laws of the State of Illinois.
Defendants 18. Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services (hereafter “HHS”) is an agency of the United States and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Mandate. 19. Defendant Kathleen Sebelius is Secretary of HHS and is named as a party only in her official capacity. 20. Defendant United States Department of the Treasury is an agency of the United States and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Mandate. 21. Defendant Jack Lew is Secretary of the Treasury and is named as a party only in his official capacity. 22. Defendant United States Department of Labor (hereafter “DOL”) is an agency of the United States and is responsible for administration and enforcement of the Mandate. 23. Defendant Seth D. Harris is Acting Secretary of DOL and is named as a party only in his official capacity.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 24. Plaintiffs Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower hold to the teachings of the Catholic Church regarding the sanctity of human life from conception to natural death. They believe that actions intended to terminate an innocent human life by abortion are gravely sinful. The Hartenbowers also adhere to the Catholic Church’s teaching regarding the immorality of contraception and sterilization. 25. Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower seek to manage and operate Plaintiffs Hart Electric and H.I. Hart in a way that reflects the teachings, mission, and values of
5

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID #:6
their Catholic faith. 26. Based on their religious beliefs, and pursuant to the ethical guidelines of their
businesses, Hart Electric and H.I. Hart, the Hartenbowers object to including, covering, and paying for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion, including related education and counseling regarding the same, in a health insurance plan for themselves and their employees.
27. In furtherance of his Catholic faith, Milton Fred Hartenbower actively participates in local charities in his community, donates money to his parish church, the Diocese of Peoria, Priests for Life, Students for Life, EWTN, Food for the Poor, Catholic Charities, and other charities he believes further the work of God.
28. In furtherance of her Catholic faith, Catherine Hartenbower actively supports and participates in her parish church, has taught CCD for over 20 years, has made overseas religious pilgrimages, and is the pro-life representative for St. John the Baptist Catholic Church.
29. Hart Electric currently has fifty-four employees, including its owners, Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower. Employees of Hart Electric, including the Hartenbowers, are currently covered by a group health insurance plan issued by Humana, with an annual renewal date of April 1.
30. H.I. Hart currently has five employees, not including its owners. Employees of H.I. Hart are covered by a group health insurance plan issued by Humana, with an annual renewal date of August 1.
31. Like other non-cash benefits provided by Plaintiffs to their employees, Plaintiffs consider the provision of employee health insurance an integral component of furthering the companies’ missions and values and their Catholic faith.
32. Plaintiffs Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower believe that they cannot arrange for, pay for, provide, facilitate, or otherwise support employee health plan
6

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID #:7
coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, abortion, or related education and counseling consistent with their religious beliefs and have established ethical guidelines for Plaintiffs Hart Electric LLC and H.I. Cable LLC setting forth those beliefs.
APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE MANDATE 33. Under the Mandate challenged herein, all non-exempt employers that offer nongrandfathered group health plans must provide coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization, and education and counseling for same. 34. The Mandate went into effect on August 1, 2012, and applies to the first health insurance plan-year starting on or after August 1, 2012. 35. The group health plan for Plaintiff Hart Electric is due for renewal on April 1, 2013 and H.I. Hart’s health plan renewed on August 1, 2012. As was discovered in or about December 2012, the current group health plans for both Hart Electric and H.I. Hart include coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion. This is an error contrary to what Plaintiffs want based on their religious beliefs. 36. Plaintiffs wish to maintain health insurance coverage for employees of Hart Electric and H.I. Hart and, at the same time, and consistent with their religious beliefs, exclude coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures and patient education and counseling regarding such procedures. 37. Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower are investigating ways to obtain employee health insurance coverage that complies with their Catholic faith and the ethical guidelines of Plaintiffs Hart Electric LLC and H.I. Cable LLC.1/
1/ The State of Illinois requires coverage for outpatient contraceptive services and drugs in individual and group health insurance policies. 215 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 5/356z.4. Yet, the Illinois Health Care Right of Conscience Act, 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 70/1, et seq., provides “health care payers,” 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 70/3(f), such as Plaintiffs, with an exemption from
7

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID #:8
38. Under the terms of the Mandate, Plaintiffs are not permitted to obtain coverage that excludes the aforementioned drugs and services. On the contrary, the Mandate will require that Plaintiffs continue to provide their employees with coverage of those services, activities, and practices that Plaintiffs consider sinful and immoral.
39. Plaintiffs, as for-profit employers, do not qualify for the “religious employer” exemption afforded by Defendants. See 45 CFR § 147.130 (a)(1)(iv)(A) and (B).
40. Because Plaintiffs are not non-profit entities, they are not permitted to take advantage of the “temporary safe-harbor” as set forth by the Defendants at 77 Fed. Register 8725 (Feb. 15, 2012).
41. Health insurance plans in existence as of the enactment of PPACA, on or about March 23, 2010, that do not include coverage for all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization, and related education and counseling and that have not since been materially changed are considered “grandfathered” plans that do not have to comply with the Mandate.
42. The Mandate coerces Plaintiffs into complying with its requirements and abandoning integral components of Plaintiffs’ religiously inspired mission and values.
43. Failure to comply with the Mandate would likely require Plaintiffs to pay ruinous annual fines and penalties to the federal government. Under 26 U.S.C. § 4980D, Plaintiffs would likely face substantial financial penalties for each year that they provide an insurance plan for their full-time employees that does not cover the goods and services that Plaintiffs’ faith forbids them from directly subsidizing.
having to pay for, or having to arrange for the payment of, any health care services, including “family planning, counseling, referrals, or any other advice in connection with the use or procurement of contraceptives and sterilization or abortion procedures; medication; or surgery or other care or treatment,” 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. § 70/3(a), that violates the health care payer’s conscience as documented in its ethical guidelines or the like, 745 Ill. Comp. Stat. §§ 70/2, 70/3(e), 70/11.2.
8

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID #:9
44. Plaintiffs are confronted with choosing between complying with the Mandate’s requirements in violation of their religious beliefs, or paying ruinous fines that would have a crippling impact on their ability to survive economically. Because the Mandate coerces Plaintiffs into complying with its requirements or abandoning integral components of the Plaintiffs’ religiously inspired mission and values, it imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ religious exercise.
45. Any alleged interest Defendants have in providing free FDA-approved contraceptives, abortifacients, and sterilization and related education and counseling services, without cost-sharing, is not compelling as applied to Plaintiffs. In addition, any such interest could be advanced by Defendants through other more narrowly tailored means that do not require Plaintiffs to pay for and otherwise support coverage of such items through their employee health plan in violation of their religious beliefs and moral values.
46. Plaintiffs lack an adequate or available administrative remedy or, in the alternative, any effort to obtain an administrative remedy would be futile.
47. Plaintiffs lack an adequate remedy at law. CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I
(Violation of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act) 48. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all of the preceding paragraphs. 49. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from arranging for, paying for, providing, facilitating, or otherwise supporting coverage for “all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling related to such procedures.” 50. The Mandate, by requiring Plaintiffs to provide said coverage, imposes a
9

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID #:10
substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in a manner that violates their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government for choosing to conduct their business in accordance with those beliefs.
51. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs furthers no compelling governmental interest. 52. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs is not narrowly tailored to furthering any compelling interest. 53. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs is not the least restrictive means of furthering the Defendants’ stated interests. 54. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violate rights secured to Plaintiffs by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, et seq. 55. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT II (Violation of the Federal Free Exercise Clause) 56. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 47 above and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 57. Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs prevent them from arranging for, paying for, providing, facilitating, or otherwise supporting coverage for “all FDA-approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling related to such procedures.” 58. The Mandate, by requiring Plaintiffs to provide said coverage imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion by coercing Plaintiffs to choose
10

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID #:11
between conducting their business in a manner that violates their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government.
59. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs furthers no compelling governmental interest. 60. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs is not narrowly tailored to furthering any compelling interest. 61. Applying the Mandate to Plaintiffs is not the least restrictive means of furthering the Defendants’ stated interests. 62. The Mandate is neither neutral nor generally applicable. 63. The Mandate and Defendants’ threatened enforcement of same violates Plaintiffs’ rights to free exercise of religion as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 64. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT III (Violation of the Federal Free Speech Clause) 65. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 47 above and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 66. The First Amendment protects organizations as well as individuals against being compelled to speak. 67. Expenditures of money are a form of protected speech. 68. Plaintiffs believe that the aforementioned services, activities, and practices covered by the Mandate are contrary to their religious beliefs. 69. The Mandate compels Plaintiffs to directly subsidize services, activities, and
11

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID #:12
practices Plaintiffs believe to be immoral. 70. The Mandate compels Plaintiffs to arrange for, pay for, provide, facilitate, or
otherwise support coverage for education and counseling related to contraception, sterilization, and abortion.
71. Defendants’ actions thus violate Plaintiffs’ free speech rights as guaranteed by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.
72. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
COUNT IV (Violation of the Administrative Procedure Act) 73. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations in paragraphs 1 through 47 above and incorporate those allegations herein by reference. 74. The Affordable Care Act expressly delegates to an agency within Defendant United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the authority to establish “preventive care” guidelines that a group health plan and health insurance issuer must provide. 75. Given this express delegation, Defendants were obliged to engage in formal notice and comment rulemaking as prescribed by law before Defendants issued the guidelines that group health plans and insurers must provide. 76. Proposed regulations were required to be published in the Federal Register, and interested persons were required to be given a chance to take part in the rulemaking through the submission of written data, views, or arguments. 77. Defendants promulgated the “preventive care” guidelines without engaging in the
12

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID #:13
formal notice and comment rulemaking as prescribed by law. Defendants delegated the responsibilities for issuing “preventive care” guidelines to a non-governmental entity, the Institute of Medicine, which did not permit or provide for broad public comment otherwise required by the Administrative Procedure Act.
78. Defendants also failed to engage in the required notice and comment rulemaking when Defendants issued the interim final rules and the final rule that incorporates the “preventive care” guidelines.
79. Moreover, the Mandate Rule violates Section 1303(b)(1)(A) of PPACA, which provides that “nothing in this title” “shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of [abortion] services . . . as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year.” 42 U.S.C. § 18023(b)(1)(A)(i) (codification of Section 1303 of PPACA).
80. The Mandate violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. 81. The Mandate violates the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. 82. Defendants, in promulgating the Mandate, failed to consider the constitutional and statutory implications of the Mandate on for-profit employers such as Plaintiffs. 83. Accordingly, the Mandate is arbitrary and capricious, not in accordance with law or required procedure, and is contrary to constitutional right, in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2). 84. Absent injunctive and declaratory relief against the Mandate, Plaintiffs have been and will continue to be harmed, and they request the relief set forth below in their prayer for relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF 85. Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege all allegations made above and incorporate those allegations herein by reference, and Plaintiffs request that this Court grant them the following
13

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID #:14
relief and enter final judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiffs: A. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of same against
Plaintiffs violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act; B. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of same against
Plaintiffs violates the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
C. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of same against Plaintiffs violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution;
D. Declare that the Mandate and Defendants’ enforcement of same against Plaintiffs violates the Administrative Procedure Act;
E. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions prohibiting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, successors in office, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them, including any insurance carriers or third party plan administrators, from applying and enforcing the Mandate and any related regulations, rules, statutes, laws, penalties, fines or assessments against Plaintiffs, and prohibiting Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, employees, successors in office, attorneys, and those acting in active concert or participation with them from applying and enforcing the Mandate against any insurance carriers or third party plan administrators with whom Plaintiffs may seek to contract with respect to the provision or administration of an employee health plan for Plaintiffs’ employees;
F. Award Plaintiffs their costs and attorney’s fees associated with this action; and G. Award Plaintiffs any further relief this Court deems equitable and just.
14

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 1 Filed: 03/26/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID #:15 Respectfully submitted this 26th day of March, 2013.

Edward L. White III (MI Bar No. P62485) American Center for Law & Justice 5068 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Tel. 734-662-2984; Fax. 734-302-1758 ewhite@aclj.org
Carly F. Gammill (TN Bar No. 28217) American Center for Law & Justice 188 Front St., Ste. 116-19 Franklin, Tennessee 37064 Tel. (615) 415-4822; Fax: (615) 599-5189 cgammill@aclj-dc.org
*Application for admission forthcoming

/s/ Geoffrey R. Surtees Geoffrey R. Surtees (KY Bar No. 89063) Francis J. Manion (KY Bar No. 85594) American Center for Law & Justice 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052 Tel. 502-549-7020; Fax. 502-549-5252 fmanion@aclj.org gsurtees@aclj.org
Erik M. Zimmerman* American Center for Law & Justice 1000 Regent University Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464 Tel. 757-226-2489; Fax. 757-226-2836 ezimmerman@aclj.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

15

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID #:61

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02253

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

Defendants. _______________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs, Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower, and their businesses, Hart Electric, LLC and H.I. Hart, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit this unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and a stay of all proceedings in this case pending the resolution of two cases before the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals involving claims substantially similar to the legal claims Plaintiffs bring here against the same federal regulations

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID #:62
Plaintiffs challenge here. Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.); Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-077 (7th Cir.).1
Plaintiffs wish to run their businesses in a manner consistent with their religious values and beliefs, including in the choice of a health plan for themselves and their employees. Regulations imposed by Defendants, however, requiring that group health plans include FDAapproved contraceptive methods and sterilization procedures as well as patient education and counseling about those services do not allow Plaintiffs to do so. Plaintiffs’ religious principles and beliefs not only provide that abortion, contraception, and sterilization are immoral, but that directly paying for the use of such products and services through a group health plan is immoral as well. Plaintiffs are thus confronted with a Hobson’s choice: violate their religious beliefs in the management of their businesses, or pay the federal government in order to act consistently with their faith.
In order for Plaintiffs to act consistently with their religious beliefs until the resolution of the Korte and Grote appeals, Plaintiffs request a preliminary injunction enjoining defendants, until 30 days after the mandate issues from the Seventh Circuit in Korte and Grote, from enforcing against Hart Electric LLC, H.I. Cable LLC, their employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for noncompliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.
1 These two cases have been consolidated on appeal and are now fully briefed. Oral argument is currently scheduled for May 22, 2013.
2

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID #:63
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has twice granted preliminary injunctive relief in cases that are substantially similar to this case. See Korte v. Sebelius, No. 123841, 2012 WL 6757353 (7th Cir. Dec. 28, 2012); Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-077, 708 F.3d 850 (7th Cir. 2013). A district court within this judicial district has done likewise. See Triune Health Group, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 1:12-cv-06756 (N.D. Ill. Jan. 3, 2013) (finding that Korte was “binding precedent” entitling Plaintiffs to injunctive relief under circumstances similar to those present here) (attached hereto as Exhibit A). More recently, based on the Korte and Grote decisions, Defendants did not oppose a motion for a preliminary injunction filed by another for-profit employer within this district. Lindsay v. U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., No. 1:13-cv-01210 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 20, 2013) (order granting plaintiffs’ unopposed motion for preliminary injunction) (attached hereto as Exhibit B).
Based on the orders of the motions panel in Korte and Grote, counsel for Defendants have indicated to undersigned counsel that they do not oppose Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction based on Plaintiffs’ claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., until such time as the appeals in Grote and Korte are resolved. For the reasons stated in defendants’ oppositions to plaintiffs’ motions for preliminary injunction in Grote and Korte, see Defs.’ Brief in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for Prelim. Inj. and in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss, Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius, No. 4:12-cv-00134-SEB-DML (S.D. Ind. Nov. 19, 2012), ECF No. 15; Defs.’ Mem. in Opp’n to Pls.’ Mot. for a Prelim. Inj., Korte v. HHS, No. 3:12-CV-01072-MJR (S.D. Ill. Nov. 6, 2012), ECF No. 22, as well as the district courts’ decisions denying preliminary relief in those cases, see Grote Industries, LLC v. Sebelius, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 6725905 (S.D. Ind. 2012); Korte v. HHS, __ F. Supp. 2d __, 2012 WL 6553996 (S.D. Ill. 2012), defendants do not believe that plaintiffs are likely to succeed on the
3

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID #:64
merits of any of their claims, and believe that the decisions of the motions panel in Grote and Korte were incorrect. Furthermore, it is defendants’ position that those decisions are not binding on this Court. See United States v. Henderson, 536 F.3d 776, 778 (7th Cir. 2008); In re Rodriquez, 258 F.3d 757, 759 (8th Cir. 2001); Lambert v. Blackwell, 134 F.3d 506, 513 n.17 (3d Cir. 1997). Nonetheless, defendants acknowledge that, even if this Court were to agree with defendants and deny plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, plaintiffs would likely then seek an injunction pending appeal, which would likely be assigned to the same motions panel that decided Grote and Korte and would thus likely be granted for the reasons already articulated by the panel. Therefore, defendants do not oppose the entry of preliminary injunctive relief in favor of plaintiffs based on their RFRA claim at this time, to last until 30 days after the mandate issues from the Seventh Circuit in Grote and Korte.
Should this Court grant Plaintiffs’ Unopposed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, Plaintiffs further ask this Court to stay all proceedings in this case until thirty days after the mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals in the consolidated Korte and Grote cases.
“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes of its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants. How this can best be done calls for the exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254-55 (1936). In the Grote and Korte appeals, the Seventh Circuit will be addressing legal issues that are substantially similar to those presented in this case, involving facts that are analogous in many respects to those in this case, challenging the same regulations that are challenged in this case, and raising claims that are also largely indistinguishable from those in
4

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID #:65
this case brought against the same Defendants as those in this case. Even if the Seventh Circuit’s ruling does not entirely dispose of this case, the outcome of the appeals is likely to substantially affect the outcome of this litigation, and the Court and the parties will undoubtedly benefit from the Seventh Circuit’s views. Defendants do not oppose Plaintiffs’ request for a stay.
CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to grant their unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants, until 30 days after the mandate issues from the Seventh Circuit in Korte and Grote, from enforcing against Hart Electric LLC, H.I. Cable LLC, their employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d. Plaintiffs further respectfully ask this Court to stay all proceedings in this case until thirty days after the mandate issues from the United States Court of Appeals in the consolidated cases of Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.) and Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, 13-077 (7th Cir.). Counsel for defendants have indicated to undersigned counsel that they do not seek a bond.
5

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID #:66

Respectfully submitted, April 16, 2013.
Edward L. White III (MI Bar No. P62485) American Center for Law & Justice 5068 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Tel. 734-662-2984; Fax. 734-302-1758 ewhite@aclj.org
Carly F. Gammill (TN Bar No. 28217) American Center for Law & Justice 188 Front St., Ste. 116-19 Franklin, Tennessee 37064 Tel. 615-415-4822; Fax: (615) 599-5189 cgammill@aclj-dc.org

/s/ Geoffrey R. Surtees Geoffrey R. Surtees (KY Bar No. 89063) Francis J. Manion (KY Bar No. 85594) American Center for Law & Justice PO Box 60 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052 Tel. 502-549-7020; Fax. 502-549-5252 fmanion@aclj.org gsurtees@aclj.org
Erik M. Zimmerman (VA Bar No. 71586) American Center for Law & Justice 1000 Regent University Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464 Tel. 757-226-2489; Fax. 757-226-2836 ezimmerman@aclj.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

6

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 13 Filed: 04/16/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID #:67

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Geoffrey R. Surtees, counsel for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on April 16, 2013 a true and correct copy of the foregoing and attachments were caused to be filed electronically with this Court through the CM/ECF filing system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system. Parties may access this filing through the Court’s CM/ECF system. I also certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing were caused to be sent on April 16, 2013 to each of the following defendants and the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois by U.S. Mail:

Eric H. Holder, Jr. U.S. Attorney General 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20530-0001
Kathleen Sebelius U.S. Depart. of Health & Human Services 200 Independence Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20201
Seth D. Harris, Acting Secretary U.S. Department of Labor 200 Constitution Avenue NW Washington, DC 20210

Neal Wolin, Acting Secretary U.S. Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20220
Gary S. Shapiro, U.S. Attorney N.D. of Illinois 219 S. Dearborn Street, 5th Floor Chicago, IL 60604
/s/ Geoffrey Surtees Geoffrey R. Surtees American Center for Law & Justice PO Box 60 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052

7

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 16 Filed: 04/18/13 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:72
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,
Plaintiffs,
CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02253
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; JACK LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and SETH HARRIS, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor,
Defendants.
•[PROP9SEB] ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION
FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Before this Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stay of
proceedings. This Court grants the motion and hereby orders as follows:
1. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a preliminary injunction and stay ofproceedings is
GRANTED.

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 16 Filed: 04/18/13 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:73
2. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, successors in office, employees, attorneys, and those acting in concert or participation with them are ENJOINED until30 days after the mandate issues from the Seventh Circuit in Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.) and Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, 13-077 (7th Cir.), from enforcing against Hart Electric LLC, H.I. Cable LLC, their employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide employees insurance coverage for "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity," 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and
29 u.s.c. §§ 1132, 1185d.
3. All proceedings in this case are stayed until thirty days after the mandate issues from the United States Court ofAppeals in the consolidated cases ofKorte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.) and Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, 13-077 (7th Cir.).
4. No bond shall be required of Plaintiffs.
IT IS SO ORDERED in Chambers on ~? , 2013.
~
HON. RUBEN CASTILLO United States District Judge

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/10/14 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:77

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02253

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

Defendants. _______________________________________/

PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Plaintiffs, Milton Fred Hartenbower and Catherine Hartenbower, and their businesses,

Hart Electric, LLC and H.I. Hart, LLC, by and through their undersigned counsel, hereby submit

this unopposed motion to extend both the preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings

currently in place in this case pending the resolution of two cases before the United States

Supreme Court: Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354 (S. Ct.), cert. granted, Nov.

26, 2013, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 (S. Ct.), cert. granted,

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/10/14 Page 2 of 5 PageID #:78
Nov. 26, 2013. These two cases involve claims that are substantially similar to the legal claims Plaintiffs bring here against the same federal regulations that Plaintiffs challenge here.
On April 18, 2013 (Dkt # 16), this Court entered a preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings in this case pending the disposition of two cases then before the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit: Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12-3841 (7th Cir.), consolidated with Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, No. 13-077 (7th Cir.) According to the April 16, 2013 order, the preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings are to remain in place until thirty days after the issuance of the mandate in these cases.
On November 9, 2013, the Seventh Circuit decided the Korte and Grote cases. 735 F.3d 654. The court ruled that the contraception mandate substantially burdens the religious exercise of the plaintiff corporations and their owners under the Religious Freedom Act. The court further ruled that the mandate does not serve a compelling governmental interest and is not the least restrictive means of advancing any such interest. The Seventh Circuit remanded the cases with instructions to enter preliminary injunctions barring enforcement of the contraception mandate against the plaintiffs.
On December 31, 2013, the mandate was issued in Korte and Grote. (A copy of the Notice of Issuance of Mandate is attached hereto as Exhibit A.)
Plaintiffs move this Court to extend the preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings in this case until forty-five days after the Supreme Court issues judgments in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood. In these cases, the Supreme Court will address legal issues that are substantially similar to those presented in this case, involving facts that are analogous in many respects to those in this case, challenging the same regulations that are challenged in this case, and raising claims that are largely indistinguishable from those in this case brought against the

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/10/14 Page 3 of 5 PageID #:79
same Defendants as those in this case. Even if the Supreme Court’s rulings do not entirely dispose of this case, the outcome of the decisions in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood are likely to affect substantially the outcome of this litigation.
Defendants have advised undersigned counsel that they do not oppose this motion. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs respectfully ask this Court to grant their unopposed motion for an extension of the current preliminary injunction, enjoining Defendants, until fortyfive days after the Supreme Court issues judgment in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood, from enforcing against Plaintiffs, their employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to provide employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.
Plaintiffs further respectfully ask this Court to stay all proceedings in this case until forty-five days after the Supreme Court issues judgment in Hobby Lobby and Conestoga Wood.

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/10/14 Page 4 of 5 PageID #:80

Respectfully submitted, January 10, 2014.
Edward L. White III (MI Bar No. P62485) American Center for Law & Justice 5068 Plymouth Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Tel. 734-662-2984; Fax. 734-302-1758 ewhite@aclj.org

/s/ Geoffrey R. Surtees Geoffrey R. Surtees (KY Bar No. 89063) Francis J. Manion (KY Bar No. 85594) American Center for Law & Justice PO Box 60 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052 Tel. 502-549-7020; Fax. 502-549-5252 gsurtees@aclj.org fmanion@aclj.org

Carly F. Gammill (TN Bar No. 28217) American Center for Law & Justice 188 Front St., Ste. 116-19 Franklin, Tennessee 37064 Tel. 615-415-4822; Fax: 615-599-5189 cgammill@aclj-dc.org

Erik M. Zimmerman (VA Bar No. 71586) American Center for Law & Justice 1000 Regent University Drive Virginia Beach, Virginia 23464 Tel. 757-226-2489; Fax. 757-226-2836 ezimmerman@aclj.org
Counsel for Plaintiffs

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 19 Filed: 01/10/14 Page 5 of 5 PageID #:81
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Geoffrey R. Surtees, counsel for Plaintiffs, hereby certify that on January 10, 2014, a
true and correct copy of the foregoing and attachments were caused to be filed electronically
with this Court through the CM/ECF filing system. Notice of this filing will be sent to all parties
for whom counsel has entered an appearance by operation of the Court’s CM/ECF system,
including the following counsel for Defendants. Parties may access this filing through the
Court’s CM/ECF system.
Michelle Renee Bennett U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202 305 8902 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov
Benjamin Leon Berwick U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Av., NW Suite 7306 Washington, DC 20012 202 305 8573 Email: benjamin.l.berwick@usdoj.gov
/s/ Geoffrey Surtees Geoffrey R. Surtees American Center for Law & Justice PO Box 60 6375 New Hope Road New Hope, Kentucky 40052

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 22 Filed: 01/21/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:88

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

,.....,

s

<=;)

,',P)

.z:-

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER,

0 ia:

CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER,HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.l.

G,m("")
=-'lr :,:-..0-!""1

::z
N

C: • .. ""~ n
C' ::J :0 .

CABLE LLC d/b/a H.l. HART LLC,

o:::u
-! ~

-o
::£:

C';r,
C.)

Plaintiffs,

0
0c::

-.. C)

~2

+='""

V.

.L!!1
CASE NO. 1: 13-cv-02253 ·

"'

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, in her official capacity as Secretary ofthe United States Department of Health and Hwnan Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; JACK LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary ofthe United States Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and SETH HARRIS, in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor,
Defendants.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION TO EXTEND PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND STAY OF PROCEEDINGS
Before this Court is Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction and
stay of proceedings in this case pending the resolution of two cases before the United States
Supreme Court, Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. , No. 13-354 (S. Ct.), cert. granted, Nov.
26, 2013 , and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 (S. Ct.), cert. granted,
Nov. 26, 2013.
This Court GRANTS the motion and hereby ORDERS as follows :

•
,

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 22 Filed: 01/21/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:89

1. Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction and stay of

proceedings in this case is GRANTED.

2. Defendants, their officers, agents, servants, successors m office, employees,

attorneys, and those acting in concert or participation with them are ENJOINED until forty-five

days after the Supreme Court issues judgment in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-

354 (S. Ct.), cert. granted, Nov. 26, 2013, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius,

No. 13-356 (S. Ct.), cert. granted, Nov. 26, 2013, from enforcing against the Plaintiffs, their

employee health plan(s), or their insurer(s) the statute and regulations that require Plaintiffs to

provide employees insurance coverage for "[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved

contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all

women with reproductive capacity," 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines,

assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§

4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d.

3.

All proceedings in this case are stayed until forty-five days after the Supreme

Court issues judgment in Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., No. 13-354 (S. Ct.), cert.

granted, Nov. 26, 2013, and Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sebelius, No. 13-356 (S. Ct.),

cert. granted, Nov. 26, 2013.

4. No bond shall be required of Plaintiffs.

HON. RUBEN CASTILLO Chief Judge, U.S. District Court, N.D. Ill.
2

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 30 Filed: 09/25/14 Page 1 of 2 PageID #:111

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,

Plaintiffs,

v.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02253

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

Defendants.

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION AND ORDER REGARDING FUTURE
PROCEEDINGS Before this Court is Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction and Plaintiffs’ unopposed recommendation for further proceedings. This Court grants the motion and hereby orders as follows:
1. Plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to extend the preliminary injunction is granted. 2. Defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office, are preliminarily enjoined, until such time as the Court enters final judgment in this matter, from enforcing against

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 30 Filed: 09/25/14 Page 2 of 2 PageID #:112
Hart Electric LLC and H.I. Cable LLC (the “Hart Companies”), their employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or the Hart Companies’ health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to the Hart Companies’ health plan(s), the statute and regulations that require the Hart Companies to provide their employees insurance coverage for “[a]ll Food and Drug Administration approved contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and patient education and counseling for all women with reproductive capacity,” 77 Fed. Reg. 8725, as well as any penalties, fines, assessments, or enforcement actions for non-compliance, including those found in 26 U.S.C. §§ 4980D, 4980H, and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132, 1185d. No bond shall be required of Plaintiffs.
3. The parties, by October 24, 2014, shall submit to the Court either a joint proposed permanent injunction and final judgment, or a joint proposal for resolving any remaining dispute about the scope of the injunction and judgment to be entered.
IT IS SO ORDERED in Chambers on September 25, 2014.
___________________________________ HON. RUBEN CASTILLO United States District Judge
2

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 34 Filed: 11/03/14 Page 1 of 3 PageID #:124

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION

MILTON FRED HARTENBOWER, CATHERINE A. HARTENBOWER, HART ELECTRIC LLC, and H.I. CABLE LLC d/b/a H.I. HART LLC,

Plaintiffs,

V.

CASE NO. 1:13-CV-02253

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; SYLVIA M. BURWELL, in her official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY; JACK LEW, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Treasury; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and THOMAS E. PEREZ, in his official capacity as Secretary ofthe United States Department of Labor,

Defendants.
------------------------------~/

INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT In light of the Supreme Court's decision in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 2751 (2014), and upon the parties' Joint Motion for Entry oflnjunction and Judgment, it is hereby ORDERED that defendants, their employees, agents, and successors in office are permanently enjoined (a) from enforcing

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 34 Filed: 11/03/14 Page 2 of 3 PageID #:125
(1) the "June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement," defined here to include those provisions of federal law in existence on June 30, 2014, when the Supreme Court decided Hobby Lobby, that require plaintiffs Hart Electric LLC and H.I. Cable LLC d/b/a H.I. Hart LLC (hereinafter, "Hart Companies") to provide their employees with health coverage for contraceptive methods, sterilization procedures, and related patient education and counseling to which plaintiffs object on religious grounds, e.g., 26 C.F.R. § 54.9815-2713(a)(l)(iv); 29 C.F.R. § 2590.7152713(a)(l)(iv); 45 C.F.R. § 147.130(a)(l)(iv); and
(2) any penalties, fines, or assessments for noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement, including those found in 26 U.S.C. § 4980D and 29 U.S.C. §§ 1132 and 1185d; and
(b) from taking any other actions based on noncompliance with the June 30, 2014 Contraceptive Coverage Requirement
against plaintiffs Hart Companies, their employee health plan(s), the group health coverage provided in connection with such plan(s), and/or the Hart Companies' health insurance issuers and/or third-party administrators with respect to the Hart Companies' health plan(s); and it is further
ORDERED that judgment is entered in favor of plaintiffs and against defendants on plaintiffs' claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000bb et seq.; and it is further
ORDERED that all other claims against Defendants are DISMISSED; and it is further
2

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 Document #: 34 Filed: 11/03/14 Page 3 of 3 PageID #:126

ORDERED that any petition by plaintiffs for attorneys ' fees or costs shall be submitted

on or before 60 days (or the next business day ifthat day falls on a weekend or court holiday)

from the date this judgment is issued; and it is further

ORDERED that this Injunction and Judgment does not apply with respect to any changes

in statute or regulation that are enacted or promulgated after this date, and nothing herein

prevents plaintiffs from filing a new civil action to challenge any: s

es.

Date #

The Honorable Ru en Castillo United States District Judge

3

 
 Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 1 of 6
KIM,STAYED,TERMED
United States District Court Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 6.2.2 (Chicago)
CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:13−cv−02253

Hartenbower et al v. United States Department of Health and Human Services et al Assigned to: Honorable Ruben Castillo Cause: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 03/26/2013 Date Terminated: 04/19/2013 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: U.S. Government Defendant

Hart Electric, LLC

represented by Geoffrey R Surtees American Center For Law And Justice Po Box 60 New Hope, KY 40052 (502) 549−7020 Email: gsurtees@aclj.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Lawrence White American Center For Law & Justice 3001 Plymouth Road Suite 203 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 (734) 680−8007 Email: ewhite@aclj.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erik Michael Zimmerman American Center For Law And Justice 1000 Regent University Dr. Virginia Beach, VA 23464 (757) 226−2489 Email: ezimmerman@aclj.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Francis J Manion American Center For Law And Justice PO Box 60 New Hope, KY 40052 (502) 549−5252 Email: fmanion@aclj.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
H.I. Cable, LLC doing business as H.I. Hart LLC

represented by Geoffrey R Surtees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward Lawrence White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erik Michael Zimmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Francis J Manion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 2 of 6

Plaintiff Milton Fred Hartenbower
Plaintiff Catherine A. Hartenbower

represented by Geoffrey R Surtees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Lawrence White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Michael Zimmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Francis J Manion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Geoffrey R Surtees (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward Lawrence White (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Michael Zimmerman (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Francis J Manion (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett U.S. Department of Justice Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch 20 Massachusetts Ave., N.W. Washington, DC 20001 202 305 8902 Email: michelle.bennett@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
AUSA − Chicago United States Attorney's Office (NDIL − Chicago) 219 South Dearborn Street Chicago, IL 60604 Email: USAILN.ECFAUSA@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 3 of 6

Human Services

ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
United States Department of the Treasury

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant United States Department of Labor

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant
Seth Harris in his official capacity as Acting Secretary of the United States Department of Labor

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

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

represented by Michelle Renee Bennett (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

AUSA − Chicago (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 03/26/2013
03/26/2013 03/26/2013
03/26/2013

# Docket Text
1 COMPLAINT filed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton F Hartenbower, H.I. Hart, LLC; Filing fee $ 350, receipt number 0752−8180226.(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
2 CIVIL Cover Sheet (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
3 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, H.I. Hart, LLC, Catherine Hartenbower, Milton F Hartenbower by Geoffrey R Surtees (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
4 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, H.I. Hart, LLC, Catherine Hartenbower, Milton F Hartenbower by Francis J Manion (Manion, Francis) (Entered: 03/26/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 4 of 6

03/26/2013 03/26/2013 03/27/2013 03/27/2013 04/03/2013 04/09/2013 04/09/2013
04/09/2013 04/09/2013 04/10/2013 04/16/2013 04/16/2013 04/18/2013
04/18/2013 04/19/2013
04/19/2013 07/06/2013

CASE ASSIGNED to the Honorable Ruben Castillo. Designated as Magistrate Judge the Honorable Young B. Kim. (jn, ) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
5 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, H.I. Hart, LLC, Catherine Hartenbower, Milton F Hartenbower by Edward Lawrence White (White, Edward) (Entered: 03/26/2013)
SUMMONS Issued as to Kathleen Sebelius, Sec of US Dept of Health & Human Servs., − U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Department of Treasury, and U.S. Attorney General (daj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
SUMMONS Issued as to U.S. Attorney.(daj, ) (Entered: 03/27/2013)
6 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower as to All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons and U.S.P.S. receipts)(Manion, Francis) (Entered: 04/03/2013)
7 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons and U.S.P.S. receipts)(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
8 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower as to Jack Lew served on 4/4/2013, answer due 6/3/2013; United States Department of the Treasury served on 4/4/2013, answer due 6/3/2013 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons and U.S.P.S. receipts)(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
9 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons and U.S.P.S. receipts)(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
10 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, H.I. Cable, LLC, Milton Fred Hartenbower as to All Defendants (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Summons and U.S.P.S. receipts)(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/09/2013)
11 ATTORNEY Appearance for Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, Milton Fred Hartenbower by Erik Michael Zimmerman (Zimmerman, Erik) (Entered: 04/10/2013)
12 NOTICE of Motion by Geoffrey R Surtees for presentment of before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 4/24/2013 at 09:45 AM. (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
13 MOTION by Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, Milton Fred Hartenbower for preliminary injunction (UNOPPOSED) (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 04/16/2013)
15 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings [ 13 ] is granted. Enter Order Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings. All proceedings are stayed until thirty days after the mandate issues from the U.S. Court of Appeals in the consolidate cases of Korte v. Sebelius, No. 12−3841 (7th Cir.) and Grote Indus. LLC v. Sebelius, 13−077 (7th Cir.). (For further detail see separate order). Mailed notice. (et, ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
16 ORDER Granting Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for a Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings Signed by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 4/18/2013,. (et, ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
14 ATTORNEY Appearance for Defendants Seth Harris, Jack Lew, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasury by Michelle Renee Bennett (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
17 MINUTE entry before Honorable Ruben Castillo:The motion hearing set for 4/24/2013 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 04/19/2013)
18 NOTICE by Edward Lawrence White of Change of Address (White, Edward) (Entered: 07/06/2013)

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 5 of 6

01/10/2014 01/10/2014 01/21/2014 01/21/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014 08/08/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014 09/25/2014 10/24/2014
10/24/2014 11/03/2014

19 MOTION by Plaintiffs Catherine A. Hartenbower, Milton Fred Hartenbower to stay proceedings and extend preliminary injunction−unopposed (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Issuance of Mandate)(Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
20 NOTICE of Motion by Geoffrey R Surtees for presentment of motion to stay 19 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 1/22/2014 at 09:45 AM. (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 01/10/2014)
21 MINUTE entry before the Honorable Ruben Castillo:Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend preliminary injunction and stay of proceedings 19 is granted. Signature Order to follow. The motion hearing set for 1/22/2014 is vacated.Mailed notice (rao, ) (Entered: 01/21/2014)
22 ORDER GRANTING Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to Extend Preliminary Injunction and Stay of Proceedings 21 Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 1/21/2014. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 01/23/2014)
23 MOTION by Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, Milton Fred Hartenbower for preliminary injunction UNOPPOSED Motion to Extend Preliminary Injunction (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
24 NOTICE of Motion by Geoffrey R Surtees for presentment of motion for preliminary injunction 23 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 8/27/2014 at 09:45 AM. (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 08/08/2014)
25 ORDER Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 8/8/2014: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to extend preliminary injunction 23 is granted. The motion hearing set for 08/27/14 is vacated. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
26 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION to Extend Preliminary Injunction Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 8/8/2014. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 08/12/2014)
27 MOTION by Plaintiffs H.I. Cable, LLC, Hart Electric, LLC, Catherine A. Hartenbower, Milton Fred Hartenbower for preliminary injunction Unopposed (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
28 NOTICE of Motion by Geoffrey R Surtees for presentment of motion for preliminary injunction 27 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 10/1/2014 at 09:45 AM. (Surtees, Geoffrey) (Entered: 09/25/2014)
29 ORDER Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 9/25/2014: Plaintiffs' unopposed motion for preliminary injunction and recommendation for further proceedings 27 is granted. The motion hearing set for 10/1/2014 is vacated. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
30 ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS' UNOPPOSED MOTION For A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION and Order Regarding Future Proceedings Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 9/25/2014. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 09/26/2014)
31 MOTION by Defendants Seth Harris, Jack Lew, Kathleen Sebelius, United States Department of Health and Human Services, United States Department of Labor, United States Department of the Treasuryfor Entry of Injunction and Judgment (Jointly filed) (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
32 NOTICE of Motion by Michelle Renee Bennett for presentment of motion for miscellaneous relief, 31 before Honorable Ruben Castillo on 11/5/2014 at 09:45 AM. (Bennett, Michelle) (Entered: 10/24/2014)
33 ORDER Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 11/3/2014: The joint motion for entry of injunction and judgment 31 is granted. Enter Injunction and Judgment Order. Judgment is entered in favor of the plaintiffs and against the defendants on plaintiffs' claim under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. §§2000bb et seq. All other claims against the defendants are dismissed. The Court will give the plaintiffs until 1/5/2015 to file a petition for attorneys' fees or costs. The motion hearing set for 11/5/2014 is vacated. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 11/04/2014)

Case: 1:13-cv-02253 As of: 04/10/2019 10:19 AM CDT 6 of 6
11/03/2014 34 INJUNCTION AND JUDGMENT Entered by the Honorable Ruben Castillo on 11/3/2014. Mailed notice (tlm) (Entered: 11/04/2014)