Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02506/USCOURTS-azd-2_03-cv-02506-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 444
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights Welfare
Cause of Action: 42:1396 - Tort Negligence

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

WO

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Sharon Newton-Nations; Manuela

Gonzalez; Cheryl Bilbrey; Hector

Martinez; Dawn House; Dana Franklin;

Edward Bonner; D.H.; Jack Baumhardt;

Manuel Esparza,

Plaintiffs, 

and

Donald McCants; Anne Garrison; Patricia

Jones; Todd Eaton, on behalf of

themselves and all others similarly

situated, 

Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

Thomas J. Betlach, Director of the Arizona

Health Care Cost Containment System;

and Kathleen Sebelius, Secretary of the

United States Department of Health and

Human Services, in their official

capacities, 

Defendants - Appellees. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 03-2506-PHX-EHC

Ninth Circuit No. 10-16193

ORDER

On March 29, 2010, the Court filed an Order granting Defendants’ Motions for

Summary Judgment, denying Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment, and vacating the

previously imposed preliminary injunction (Doc. 186 - Order). Judgment was entered in

favor of Defendants and against Plaintiffs on March 29, 2010 (Doc. 187).

On May 25, 2010, Plaintiff Class Representatives filed a Notice of Appeal (Doc. 188).

Case 2:03-cv-02506-ROS Document 219 Filed 09/24/10 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 2 -

On August 6, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for a Stay of Judgment or, in the

alternative, Injunction Pending Appeal (Doc. 195), and supporting Memorandum (Doc. 194,

201). The matter is now fully briefed by the parties (Doc. 204-206, 208, 211-212). Plaintiffs

have filed an unopposed Motion for an Expedited Decision (Doc. 213).

 On September 20, 2010, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay or Injunction Pending Appeal

came before the Court for a hearing. Counsel for the parties appeared by telephone at the

hearing. During the hearing, defense counsel agreed that the Court has jurisdiction to

consider Plaintiffs’ motion for stay or injunction, including ordering a stay of 30 days so

Plaintiffs could seek relief in the Court of Appeals. Plaintiffs’ counsel informed the Court

that a whole new administrative rule was approved on July 13, 2010 regarding the increased

copayments (see Doc. 201 - Plaintiffs’ Memorandum at 5). Plaintiffs argue that the

challenged copayments for medical services are included in the Arizona administrative rule

set to become effective October 1, 2010. 

The Court will grant in part and deny without prejudice in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for

a Stay of Judgment or, in the alternative, Injunction Pending Appeal. 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for an Expedited Decision (Doc. 213) is

granted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Stay of Judgment or, in

the alternative, Injunction Pending Appeal (Doc. 195) is granted in part and denied without

prejudice in part. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Stay of Judgment or, in

the alternative, Injunction Pending Appeal (Doc. 195) is granted for 30 days from the

October 1, 2010 effective date of the copayments to the right of Plaintiffs to seek relief in the

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Stay or Injunction in all other

respects is denied without prejudice. 

Case 2:03-cv-02506-ROS Document 219 Filed 09/24/10 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28 - 3 -

DATED this 23rd day of September, 2010.

Case 2:03-cv-02506-ROS Document 219 Filed 09/24/10 Page 3 of 3