IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STATE OF FLORIDA, by and )

 through BILL McCOLLUM, et al., )

)

Plaintiffs, )

)

 v. ) Case No. 3:10-cv-91-RV/EMT

)

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT )

 OF HEALTH AND HUMAN )

 SERVICES, et al., )

)

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE LIMITS

Defendants, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., through

undersigned counsel, hereby move the Court for leave to file a memorandum in support of their

motion to dismiss that is no more than 75 pages in length, rather than the 50 pages previously set

forth by the Court. Plaintiffs consent to this relief, provided that they are granted the same pagelimit extension for their opposition brief. In support of this motion, Defendants state as follows:

1. During the scheduling conference held on April 14, 2010, the parties agreed that

the claims raised in Plaintiffs’ original complaint could be adequately briefed if Defendants were

permitted to file a 50-page brief in support of their motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs would then be

permitted 50 pages in opposition, and Defendants 25 pages in reply. See Sched. Hrg. Tr. 35:2–

37:14 (Apr. 14, 2010); Final Sched. Order 2 (Apr. 14, 2010) [Doc. No. 26].

2. Plaintiffs’ amended complaint, however, broadened the litigation by adding

two new categories of plaintiffs — individuals and an association of small businesses — and

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49 Filed 06/11/10 Page 1 of 5
three new substantive claims. The addition of these new parties and claims raises a host of

jurisdictional and substantive issues distinct from those presented in the original complaint.

3. For example, with respect to jurisdiction, the original complaint required

Defendants to address whether states have parens patriae standing to challenge the minimum

coverage provision, given that the provision would operate not on them, but on their citizens. 

The amended complaint requires Defendants to address, in addition, whether individuals have

standing to challenge the provision and, if they do not, whether the National Federation of

Independent Businesses has associational standing to do so in their stead. Defendants’ briefing

of these issues will assist the Court’s inquiry into whether it has jurisdiction to reach the merits

of this lawsuit. See, e.g., Univ. S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999)

(“[I]t is well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua

sponte whenever it may be lacking.”).

4. In addition, the amended complaint raises three new claims, two with no

precursor in the original complaint. Count Two now alleges that the minimum coverage

provision deprives Plaintiffs of an asserted substantive due process right to be free of

“governmental compulsion.” Am. Compl. ¶ 78. This claim requires Defendants to address,

among other things, whether such a right could be considered “objectively, deeply rooted in this

Nation’s history and tradition.” Washington v. Glucksburg, 521 U.S. 702, 720 (1997).

5. Furthermore, Count Six now alleges that the Act interferes with states’ rights as

employers. Am. Compl. ¶ 90. This claim requires Defendants to explain the effect of a series of

complex provisions applicable to certain large employers. Those provisions were not at issue in

the original complaint, and themselves raise a distinct set of procedural and substantive issues.

2

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49 Filed 06/11/10 Page 2 of 5
6. Given the number of claims raised in the amended complaint, the legal theories

asserted, and the nationwide significance of the issues presented, there is good cause for the

Court to grant leave to exceed the 50-page limit set forth in its April 14, 2010, scheduling order.

WHEREFORE, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant them leave to file a

memorandum in support of their motion to dismiss that is no more than 75 pages in length, and

that Plaintiffs be granted the same page-limit extension for their opposition brief.

Dated: June 11, 2010 Respectfully submitted,

TONY WEST

Assistant Attorney General

IAN HEATH GERSHENGORN

Deputy Assistant Attorney General

THOMAS F. KIRWIN 

United States Attorney

SHEILA LIEBER

Deputy Director

 /s/ Eric Beckenhauer 

BRIAN KENNEDY

Senior Trial Counsel

ERIC B. BECKENHAUER, Cal. Bar No. 237526

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch

20 Massachusetts Ave. NW

Washington, DC 20530

Telephone: (202) 514-3338

Facsimile: (202) 616-8470

E-mail: eric.beckenhauer@usdoj.gov

Attorneys for Defendants

3

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49 Filed 06/11/10 Page 3 of 5
RULE 7.1(B) CERTIFICATION

In accordance with Local Rule 7.1(B), counsel for Defendants conferred with counsel for

Plaintiffs, Chesterfield Smith, Jr., in an effort to resolve this issue. Plaintiffs consent to the relief

requested herein, provided that they are granted the same page-limit extension for their

opposition brief.

 /s/ Eric Beckenhauer 

ERIC B. BECKENHAUER

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

4

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49 Filed 06/11/10 Page 4 of 5
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

 I hereby certify that on June 11, 2010, the foregoing document was filed with the Clerk

of Court via the CM/ECF system, causing it to be served on Plaintiffs’ counsel of record.

 /s/ Eric B. Beckenhauer 

ERIC B. BECKENHAUER

Trial Attorney

U.S. Department of Justice

Case 3:10-cv-00091-RV-EMT Document 49 Filed 06/11/10 Page 5 of 5