Community Health Center Alliance for Patient Access v. Lightbourne ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER FOR No. 2:20-cv-02171-JAM-KJN PATIENT ACCESS, et al., 12 Plaintiffs, 13 ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX v. PARTE MOTION FOR TEMPORARY 14 RESTRAINING ORDER WILLIAM LIGHTBOURNE, Director 15 of the California Department of Health Care Services, and 16 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, 17 Defendants. 18 19 This matter is before the Court on a Motion for Temporary 20 Restraining Order (“TRO”) filed by Community Health Center 21 Alliance for Patient Access, Avenal Community Health Centers, 22 Community Health Centers of the Central Coast, Family Health 23 Centers of San Diego, Imperial Beach Community Clinic, La Maestra 24 Family Clinic, Omni Family Health, Open Door Community Health 25 Centers, Shasta Community Health Center, and South County 26 Community Health Center, Inc. (“Plaintiffs”). TRO, ECF No. 6. 27 Will Lightbourne and the California Department of Health Care 28 Services (“Defendants”) oppose the motion. Opp’n, ECF No. 13. 1 Plaintiffs have replied to Defendants’ opposition. Reply, ECF 2 No. 18. 3 Plaintiffs seek to enjoin Defendants from implementing the 4 Medi-Cal Rx Transition, which carves out the pharmacy benefit 5 from California’s Medi-Cal managed care program, or, in the 6 alternative, the Defendants’ waiver extension request, on the 7 grounds that (1) Defendants’ request for federal approval for the 8 carve out was untimely and improperly made; (2) Defendants do not 9 have an alternative method for reimbursing Plaintiffs for their 10 pharmacy benefit outside of managed care that is compliant with 11 federal law; and (3) Defendants’ proposed methodology for 12 reimbursing Plaintiffs post-transition would improperly give 13 Defendants the benefit of the drug discount program that is 14 intended to benefit Plaintiffs and other safety net providers 15 under federal law. See generally TRO. 16 However, temporary restraining orders are emergency 17 measures, intended to preserve the status quo pending a fuller 18 hearing on the injunctive relief requested, and the irreparable 19 harm must therefore be clearly immediate. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 20 65(b)(1). Here, Plaintiffs failed to adequately prove they face 21 an immediate risk of irreparable harm as Defendants have publicly 22 stated the transition to Medi-Cal RX will not be effective until 23 April 1, 2021. See Opp’n at 9-13. From the parties’ briefing, 24 it is clear to the Court that there are numerous factual and 25 legal disputes. It would be inappropriate to grant the ultimate 26 relief sought at the earliest stage in the proceeding, prior to a 27 more deliberative investigation of the claims’ merits. See 28 Senate of State of Cal. v. Mosbacher, 968 F.2d 974, 978 (9th Cir. nee enn meee ne nn nnn en en enn EN OS ISI I ED EEO 1 1992) (finding that it is inappropriate to grant preliminary 2 relief that results in the non-moving party essentially losing 3 the whole case). 4 5 I. ORDER 6 After careful consideration of all papers filed by both 7 parties, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Ex Parte Motion for a 8 Temporary Restraining Order. 9 Plaintiffs may, of course, file a motion for a preliminary 10 injunction which would allow the Court to consider their 11 arguments regarding the merits, or lack thereof, of their claims. 12 In denying their motion for a TRO, the Court has not reached the 13 issue of the Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits. A 14 motion for a preliminary injunction, if filed within the next 15 thirty days, could be heard and decided by the Court prior to the 16 date the Medi-Cal Rx Transition is scheduled to be implemented. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 Dated: November 24, 2020 19 ke Me 20 teiren staves odermacr 7008 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28