DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY AS PREMATURE OR STAY PLAINTIFFS’ EARLY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Oct 6, 2026

Uploaded by Putri

Defendants move to deny Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment as premature or, alternatively, to stay it until after the resolution of Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. Defendants argue that Plaintiffs seek to bypass ordinary litigation procedures and the required showings for preliminary relief, depriving Defendants of jurisdictional defenses and delaying record development. Defendants contend the requested permanent relief is unjustified given the case’s pendency and the lack of claims concerning post–May 2021 events.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryHealthcare

FormatPDF

Pages122

Reading Time5 h 7 min

AccessFree to download

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY AS PREMATURE OR STAY PLAINTIFFS’ EARLY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Background

Challenged regulatory activities under Section 1557

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA American College of Pediatricians, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:21-cv-195-TAV-SKL DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DENY AS PREMATURE OR STAY PLAINTIFFS’ EARLY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Defendants hereby move this Court to deny as premature Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, ECF No. 27 (Jan. 7, 2021), or, in the alternative, to stay that motion until after resolution of Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. For the reasons set forth more fully in Defendants’ accompanying Memorandum, denial or a stay of that motion for early summary judgment is appropriate. For these reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and enter an Order denying Plaintiffs’ motion as premature or, in the alternative, enter an Order staying Plaintiffs’ motion until after resolution of Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss. MOTION TO DENY OR STAY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-1 Case 1:21-cv-00195-TAV-SKL Document 28 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 2 PageID \#: 782 Dated: January 14, 2022 Respectfully submitted, BRIAN M. BOYNTON Acting Assistant Attorney General MICHELLE R. BENNETT Assistant Branch Director /s/ Jordan L. Von Bokern JORDAN L. VON BOKERN (D.C. Bar No. 1032962) Trial Attorney Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch U.S. Department of Justice 1100 L St. NW Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 305-7919 Fax: (202) 616-8460 [E-mail: Jordan.L.Von.Bokern2@usdoj.gov](E-mail: Jordan.L.Von.Bokern2@usdoj.gov) Counselfor Defendants MOTION TO DENY OR STAY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT-2 Case 1:21-cv-00195-TAV-SKL Document 28 Filed 01/14/22 Page 2 of 2 PageID \#: 783 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA American College of Pediatricians, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services, et al., Defendants. Case No. 1:21-cv-195-TAV-SKL MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DENY AS PREMATURE OR STAY PLAINTIFFS’ EARLY MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint raises over a dozen challenges to three different sets of regulatory activities undertaken by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) . Rather than litigate those challenges under ordinary rules of proceedings, or make the extraordinary showings necessary for a preliminary injunction at the outset of the litigation, Plaintiffs propose a hybrid set of proceedings that is doubly beneficial to them: they ask this Court to skip straight to summary judgment on substantially all of their challenges and enter a permanent injunction in Plaintiffs’ favor. This approach would deprive Defendants of their opportunity to raise meritorious jurisdictional defenses prior to the costly and burdensome process of litigating summary judgment, and it would prejudice Defendants’ development of record evidence for their defenses. It would also impose serious costs on this Court by clogging its docket with extensive and unnecessary merits litigation prior to the winnowing of claims and defenses that ordinary proceedings offer. And Plaintiffs can give no justification why this case—now pending for five months, and challenging nothing that postdates May 2021—needs immediate permanent relief. This Court should deny as MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF MOTION TO DENY OR STAY-1 Case 1:21-cv-00195-TAV-SKL Document 28-1 Filed 01/14/22 Page 1 of 10 PageID \#: 784 premature or stay Plaintiffs’ motion for early summary judgment and instead permit Defendants to raise their initial defenses in a motion to dismiss. BACKGROUND This lawsuit raises over a dozen challenges to three distinct sets of regulatory activities by HHS. Plaintiffs are a medical doctor in Tennessee and tw

FAQs

What do Defendants ask the court to do regarding Plaintiffs’ early summary-judgment motion?

Defendants ask the court to deny the motion as premature or, alternatively, to stay it until after the court resolves Defendants’ anticipated motion to dismiss.

Why do Defendants argue the motion should be denied as premature?

Defendants contend Plaintiffs propose an atypical hybrid procedure that skips ordinary litigation rules and the required showings for preliminary injunction relief, which would prejudice Defendants’ ability to raise jurisdictional defenses and develop the record.

What regulatory actions does the case challenge in the background?

The background describes multiple challenges to three sets of HHS regulatory activities, including an agency policy statement under Section 1557 of the Affordable Care Act and other related rules and actions, including allegations tied to discrimination on the basis of gender identity.

Oct 6, 2026

Uploaded by Putri