UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

DALLAS DIVISION

NATIONAL ATHLETIC TRAINERS’

ASSOCIATION, INC., a Texas non-profit

corporation,

Plaintiff,

VS.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES,

ET AL.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

) CIVIL ACTION NO.

)

) 3:05-CV-1098-G

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

Before the court is the motion of the plaintiff, the National Athletic Trainers’

Association (“NATA”), for injunctive relief pending resolution of NATA’s emergency

motion to alter or amend the court’s July 21, 2005 memorandum opinion and order

and final judgment. For the reasons discussed below, NATA’s instant request for

injunctive relief is denied.

I. BACKGROUND

NATA initiated this action on May 27, 2005, seeking injunctive and

declaratory relief in connection with the implementation of new regulations

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01098-G Document 79 Filed 08/11/05 Page 1 of 5 PageID 2063
- 2 -

promulgated by the defendants United States Department of Health and Human

Services (“H.H.S.”), Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary, H.H.S. (the “Secretary”), and

Mark McClellan, MD, Administrator, Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services

(“CMS”) (collectively, the “defendants”). See generally Plaintiff’s Application for

Temporary Restraining Order, Request for Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive

Relief (“Complaint”). On June 3, 2005, this court entered an order, reflecting an

agreement between the parties, staying the implementation of revised Medicare policy

born of the amended regulations at issue (the “New Rules”) until such time as the

court could issue a ruling on NATA’s request for preliminary injunctive relief or

July 22, 2005, whichever first occurred. Order, filed June 3, 2005, at 2-3. 

On June 23, 2005, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss NATA’s complaint

for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On July 21, 2005, this court granted the

defendants’ motion to dismiss and entered a judgment of dismissal. Memorandum

Opinion and Order, filed July 21, 2005; Judgment, filed July 21, 2005. The New

Rules were implemented on July 25, 2005. Defendants’ Response in Opposition to

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief and Request for Evidentiary

Hearing (“Response”) at 2, n.2. 

On July 29, 2005, NATA filed an emergency motion to alter or amend the

court’s July 21, 2005, memorandum opinion and final judgment. At the same time,

NATA filed the instant motion seeking an injunction prohibiting the Secretary from

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01098-G Document 79 Filed 08/11/05 Page 2 of 5 PageID 2064
- 3 -

continuing the enforce the New Rules. See generally Plaintiff’s Brief in Support of

Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief Pending Resolution of Plaintiff’s

Emergency Motion to Alter or Amend the Court’s July 21, 2005 Memorandum

Opinion and Order and Final Judgment, and Request for Evidentiary Hearing

(“Motion for Injunctive Relief”). 

II. ANALYSIS

In its motion for injunctive relief, NATA asserted that “[t]he Court has

authority to grant an injunction pending resolution of NATA’s motion to reconsider

(or pending appeal).” Motion for Injunctive Relief at 3. In support of this statement,

NATA cited Rule 62 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as well as two Fifth

Circuit decisions addressing injunctions issued by the district court pending appeal of

its earlier decision. Id. (citing Wildmon v. Berwick Universal Pictures, 983 F.2d 21 (5th

Cir. 1992) (after appellant timely filed a notice of appeal, district court stayed its

earlier judgment under Rule 62(c)), and Ruiz v. Estelle, 650 F.2d 555 (5th Cir. 1981)

(district court issued injunction pending appeal in accordance with Rule 8 of the

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure.)). In response, the defendants noted that

NATA did not cite any specific subdivision of Rule 62, and further argued that “none

of the potentially applicable subdivisions of [Rule] 62 entitle NATA to all the relief it

seeks . . . .” Response at 4. Moreover, the defendants maintain “it is axiomatic that

the Court, having rendered a decision that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, has no

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01098-G Document 79 Filed 08/11/05 Page 3 of 5 PageID 2065
- 4 -

jurisdiction to issue an injunction pending a decision on the motion for

reconsideration of that same decision.” Id. at 7. The court finds the defendants’

latter argument persuasive.

While it is well settled that a district court may issue injunctive relief pending 

determination of its jurisdiction over the underlying dispute, Stewart v. Dunn, 363

F.2d 591, 598 (5th Cir. 1966) (citing United States v. United States Mine Workers of

America, 330 U.S. 258 (1947)), a court lacks the authority to provide injunctive relief

once it has determined that it lacks jurisdiction over the underlying case. Barwood,

Inc. v. District of Columbia, 202 F.3d 290, 294-95 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Tropf v.

Fidelity National Title Insurance Company, 289 F.3d 929, 942 (6th Cir. 2002), cert.

denied, 537 U.S. 1118 (2003). Thus, the court lacks the authority to issue the

requested injunctive relief pending determination of NATA’s Rule 59(e) motion. 

NATA asserts that such a ruling would mean that “no party would ever be able

to seek injunctive relief during an appeal of an order dismissing a case for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.” Reply at 6. NATA’s assertion is incorrect. In light of

NATA’s Rule 59(e) motion, NATA will have another opportunity to obtain the

injunctive relief that it seeks. First, if the court grants NATA’s motion to alter or

amend, thereby determining that jurisdiction exists to adjudicate the underlying

claims for relief, the court will consider NATA’s original application for a preliminary

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01098-G Document 79 Filed 08/11/05 Page 4 of 5 PageID 2066
- 5 -

injunction. Additionally, if the court denies NATA’s Rule 59(e) motion, NATA may

seek an injunction from the Fifth Circuit pending any appeal. FED. R. APP. P. 8(a)(2).

III. CONCLUSION

For the reasons discussed above, NATA’s emergency motion for injunctive

relief pending the court’s determination of its emergency motion to alter or amend

the court’s July 21, 2005, memorandum opinion and order and the subsequent

judgment is DENIED.

SO ORDERED.

August 11, 2005.

 

 Case 3:05-cv-01098-G Document 79 Filed 08/11/05 Page 5 of 5 PageID 2067