Court filing
Motion to Clarify or Amend Judgment — Skyworks v. CDC
Filed April 7, 2021 in Skyworks, Ltd. v. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; one of 14 filings from this case.
Record facts
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
|---|---|
| Filed | 2021-04-07 |
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio · No. 5:20-cv-02407-JPC · Doc. 57 · 2021-04-07 · Docket on CourtListener
Full text
1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION
SKYWORKS, LTD., CEDARWOOD
VILLAGE APARTMENTS I & II OWNER
B, LLC; MONARCH INVESTMENT AND
MANAGEMENT GROUP, LLC; TOLEDO
PROPERTIES OWNER B, LLC; and
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF HOME
BUILDERS,
Plaintiffs,
v.
CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL
AND PREVENTION; ROCHELLE P.
WALENSKY, in her official capacity as
Director, Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention; SHERRI A. BERGER, in her
official capacity as Acting Chief of Staff,
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention;
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES; NORRIS
COCHRAN, in his official capacity as acting
Secretary of Health and Human Services;
MONTY WILKINSON, in his official
capacity as Acting Attorney General of the
United States,
Defendants.
Case No. 5:20-cv-02407-JPC
JUDGE J. PHILIP CALABRESE
MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARMEN E.
HENDERSON
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO CLARIFY OR AMEND JUDGMENT
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 1 of 6. PageID #: 1947
2
Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59(e), Plaintiffs respectfully request that this
Court clarify or amend its Opinion and Order and Judgment, both entered on March 10, 2021
(ECF# 54 and 55), to make clear that the Court’s decision setting aside the CDC’s eviction
moratorium vacated the CDC’s Order and thus applied beyond just the Plaintiffs in this case and
to all affected parties nationally, or at least to other affected parties within the Northern District of
Ohio. In support of the Motion, Plaintiffs state as follows:
In its March 10 Opinion and Order, this Court held that the CDC lacked the statutory and
regulatory authority under 42 U.S.C. 264(a) and 42 CFR 70.2 to issue an eviction moratorium.
Opinion and Order at 23. Stating that “[t]he most natural and logical reading of the statute as a
whole does not extend the CDC’s power as far as Defendants maintain,” the Court concluded that
“[t]he eviction moratorium in the CDC’s orders exceeds the statutory authority Congress gave the
agency.” Id. See also id. at 30.
As a result, under section 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act, which directs that a
reviewing court “shall hold unlawful and set aside” agency action “in excess of statutory
jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right,” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(C), the Court
concluded that because the “CDC exceeded the authority Congress gave it in Section 361, the
Court holds that action unlawful and sets it aside, as the APA requires.” Op. at 29.
Although the Court concluded that Plaintiffs were not entitled to an injunction, it
nonetheless held that they were entitled to a declaratory judgment.
The Court determines that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s
orders—Temporary Halt in Residential Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of
COVID-19, 85 Fed. Reg. 55,292 (Sept. 4, 2020) and Temporary Halt in Residential
Evictions to Prevent the Further Spread of COVID-19, 86 Fed. Reg. 8020 (Feb. 3,
2021)—exceed the agency’s statutory authority provided in Section 361 of the
Public Health Service Act, 42 U.S.C. § 264(a), and the regulation at 42 C.F.R. §
70.2 promulgated pursuant to the statute, and are, therefore, invalid.
Id. at 30.
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 2 of 6. PageID #: 1948
3
The Court’s holding is clear. The CDC’s Orders exceed its statutory and regulatory
authority and are therefore set aside and declared invalid as to all affected parties, not just the
Plaintiffs. “‘When a reviewing court determines that agency regulations are unlawful, the ordinary
result is that the rules are vacated—not that their application to the individual petitioners is
proscribed.’” National Mining Assoc. v. U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, 145 F.3d 1399, 1409 (D.C.
Cir. 1998) (quoting Harmon v. Thornburgh, 878 F.2d 484, 495 n.21 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). See also
Cumberland Med. Ctr. v. Sec'y of Health & Hum. Servs., 781 F.2d 536 (6th Cir. 1986) (holding
that an arbitrary and capricious agency rule was invalid and granting relief that treated the rule as
void ab initio).
Defendants, however, have stated that they consider this Court’s ruling to apply only to the
Plaintiffs. See Press Release, Department of Justice, Department of Justice Issues Statement
Regarding Decision in Skyworks v. CDC (March 12, 2021) (stating that “the Department of Justice
respectfully disagrees with” this Court’s decision and that “[i]n any event, the decision only applies
to the particular plaintiffs in that case. It does not prohibit the application of the CDC’s eviction
moratorium to other parties. For other landlords who rent to covered persons, the CDC’s eviction
moratorium remains in effect.”) (available at https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/department-justice-
issues-statement-regarding-decision-skyworks-v-cdc). This is consistent with recent Department
of Justice policy concerning decisions that set aside agency action under the APA. See
Memorandum from the Office of the Att'y Gen. to the Heads of Civil Litigating Components U.S.
Attorneys, Litigation Guidelines for Cases Presenting the Possibility of Nationwide Injunctions 7-
8
(Sept.
13,
2018)
(available
at
https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-
release/file/1093881/download).
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 3 of 6. PageID #: 1949
4
While Plaintiffs agree that the Court’s ruling necessarily applies to the Plaintiffs (including
to NAHB’s members throughout the nation, which Defendants have conceded), Plaintiffs submit
that, as a decision setting aside the CDC’s Orders, the Court’s ruling necessarily applies to all
affected parties beyond just the Plaintiffs in this case.
“The Federal Rules grant district courts broad discretion to ‘alter or amend a judgment’ or
to grant ‘relief from a judgment or order.’” Singh Mgmt. Co., LLC v. Singh Dev. Co., Inc., 774
Fed. App'x 921, 925 (6th Cir. 2019) (citing rules 59(e) and 60(a) and (b)). This includes the
discretion to clarify judgments. See id. (reversing district court’s denial of motion to clarify or
amend). In particular, Rule 59(e) allows courts to reconsider or clarify “matters properly
encompassed in a decision on the merits.” Banister v. Davis, 140 S.Ct. 1698, 1703 (2020). The
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure give district courts ample discretion to clarify or amend
judgments as justice and necessity require. See Power and Discretion of Court, 11 Wright, A.
Miller & M. Kane, Fed. Prac. & Proc. Civ. § 2803 (3d ed. 2012)
Accordingly, Plaintiffs respectfully request that this Court enter an order clarifying that its
ruling vacated the CDC’s Orders under section 706 of the APA not only to the Plaintiffs in this
case, but to all affected parties nationally or, in the alternative, Plaintiffs and any affected parties
within the Northern District of Ohio.
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 4 of 6. PageID #: 1950
5
DATED: April 7, 2021.
Respectfully submitted:
/s/ Steven M. Simpson
STEVEN M. SIMPSON*
DC Bar No. 462553
Pacific Legal Foundation
3100 Clarendon Blvd., Suite 610
Arlington, VA, 22201
Tel: (202) 888-6881
SSimpson@pacificlegal.org
MAURICE A. THOMPSON
(0078548)
1851 Center for Constitutional Law
122 E Main St.
Columbus, OH 43215
Tel: (614) 340-9817
Mthompson@ohioconstitution.org
LUKE A. WAKE*
DC Bar No. 1009181
ETHAN W. BLEVINS*
Washington State Bar No. 48219
HANNAH SELLS MARCLEY*
Washington State Bar No. 52692
Pacific Legal Foundation
930 G Street
Sacramento CA 95814
Tel: (916) 419-7111
Fax: (916) 419-7747
LWake@pacificlegal.org
EBlevins@pacifclegal.org
HMarcley@pacificlegal.org
*Pro Hac Vice
Attorneys for Plaintiffs
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 5 of 6. PageID #: 1951
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on April 7, 2021, I electronically filed the foregoing document with
the Clerk of the Court via the CM/ECF system, which will cause a copy to be served upon
counsel of record.
By /s/ Steven M. Simpson
STEVEN M. SIMPSON
Case: 5:20-cv-02407-JPC Doc #: 57 Filed: 04/07/21 6 of 6. PageID #: 1952File and source
- File
- gov.uscourts.ohnd.271237.57.0.pdf
- Size
- 173,488 bytes
- SHA-256
- 1771e0941f1f650261d8ee82825e1974a8a83ee55bb3e85c257d55ce93d82d95
- Original
- archive.org