Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02916/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-02916-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 899
Nature of Suit: Other Statutes - Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal of Agency Decision
Cause of Action: 05:702 Administrative Procedure Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN

FRANCISCO, 

Plaintiff,

 v.

ALEX M. AZAR II, Secretary of U.S.

Department of Health and Human Services;

ROGER SERVERINO, Director, Office for

Civil Rights, Department of Health and

Human Services; U.S. DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES; and

DOES 1-25, 

Defendants. /

No. C 19-02405 WHA

Related to

No. C 19-02769 WHA

No. C 19-02916 WHA

ORDER RE DEFENDANTS’

ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO

ADJUST SCHEDULE

The Court has received defendants’ request to hold in abeyance plaintiffs’ motion for

preliminary injunction and to set a briefing schedule for cross motions for summary judgment

(Dkt. No. 50). The motion is principally based on defense counsel’s representation to the Court

that “HHS will delay enforcement of the HHS rule challenged in this case, Protecting Statutory

Conscience Rights in Health Care; Delegations of Authority, 84 Fed. Reg. 23, 170 (May 21,

2018) [hereinafter Final Rule], until November 22, 2010” (Br. at 2).

In support, defense counsel swears, “The Department of Health and Human Services

(HHS) has indicated to the undersigned that it will delay enforcement of the Final Rule until

November 22, 2019” (Takemoto Decl. at ¶ 4). 

The problem is that a mere indication HHS “will delay” enforcement of the rule until

November 22 is not the same as an official postponement of the rule. Until there is an official

postponement, counsel’s and the agency’s “indications” are too uncertain to rely on. 

Case 3:19-cv-02916-WHA Document 46 Filed 06/27/19 Page 1 of 2
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

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

Accordingly, we will proceed with the motion for preliminary injunction until there is an official

postponement. 

Defendants are already in default with the existing briefing schedule. As such, this order

gives defendants until JULY 1, 2019 AT NOON to file their opposition to the pending motion. The

reply will be due JULY 8, 2019 AT NOON. The hearing will remain on JULY 17, 2019 AT 8:00

A.M.

 Unfortunately, this extra time for the defendants will come out of the time the Court

needs to review the materials. Counsel should have taken this into account before filing this

half-baked administrative motion. 

Defendants are admonished that nothing short of an official postponement of the final

revised rule until a later fixed date will be sufficient to reactivate defendants’ request for relief

from the existing briefing schedule. Defendants should not gamble again on this possibility. 

Defendants must file their opposition. The administrative motion is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 27, 2019. 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:19-cv-02916-WHA Document 46 Filed 06/27/19 Page 2 of 2