UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

United States of America and 

State of Michigan,

Plaintiffs,

v.

W.A. Foote Memorial Hospital 

d/b/a Allegiance Health,

Defendant.

________________________________/

Case No. 15-cv-12311

Judith E. Levy

United States District Judge

Mag. Judge David R. Grand

ORDER REQUIRING PARTIES TO SUBMIT SUPPLEMENTAL 

BRIEFING

Plaintiffs in this case allege that defendant entered into an 

agreement with former defendant Hillsdale Community Health Center 

(“HCHC”) to limit marketing in Hillsdale County. (Dkt. 1.) 

HCHC settled with plaintiffs. The order approving the settlement 

required that HCHC “not attempt to enter into, enter into, maintain, or 

enforce any Agreement with any other Provider that: (1) prohibits or 

limits Marketing; or (2) allocates any geographic market or territory 

Case 5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.2726 Filed 07/20/17 Page 1 of 4
2

between or among the Settling Defendant and any other Provider.” (Dkt. 

36 at 6–7.)

The Court also denied Allegiance’s request that HCHC and the 

other settling defendants continue to be parties to the litigation for 

purposes of discovery. (Dkt. 37.)

Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that the agreement between Allegiance 

and HCHC is ongoing. And plaintiffs request a declaration that any such 

agreement violates section 1 of the Sherman Act and section 2 of the 

Michigan Antitrust Reform Act. (Dkt. 1 at 12–13.) Plaintiffs also request 

an injunction and that defendants institute an antitrust compliance 

program. (Id. at 13–14.)

Other than the declaratory judgment, plaintiffs request only 

prospective relief. Because the settlement required HCHC to end any 

agreement to limit marketing, including with Allegiance, it appears that 

there may be no ongoing violation at issue in this case. And a party 

requesting injunctive relief “must also show that there is an ongoing 

harm or real and immediate threat of repeated injury.” Zynda v. Arwood, 

175 F. Supp. 3d 791, 806 (E.D. Mich. 2016) (citing Los Angeles v. Lyons, 

461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983)). Further, a party requesting declaratory relief 

Case 5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.2727 Filed 07/20/17 Page 2 of 4
3

must demonstrate that “there exists a controversy between the parties 

that is not moot and is ripe.” Warrior Sports, Inc. v. STX, L.L.C., 596 F. 

Supp. 2d 1070, 1074 (E.D. Mich. 2009) (citing MedImmune v. Genentech, 

Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 128 n.8 (2007)). 

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS that the parties submit 

supplemental briefing on the following question so the Court may 

determine whether it still has jurisdiction over this matter:

1. Is there a live case or controversy before the Court? Please 

address, among other issues, whether the conduct at issue 

is ongoing.

Briefing must be submitted to the Court by Monday, August 7, 

2017.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 20, 2017 s/Judith E. Levy 

Ann Arbor, Michigan JUDITH E. LEVY

United States District Judge

Case 5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.2728 Filed 07/20/17 Page 3 of 4
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served 

upon counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s 

ECF System to their respective email or First Class U.S. mail addresses 

disclosed on the Notice of Electronic Filing on July 20, 2017.

s/Shawna Burns

SHAWNA BURNS

Case Manager

Case 5:15-cv-12311-JEL-DRG ECF No. 107, PageID.2729 Filed 07/20/17 Page 4 of 4