Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Hearing or Ruling

Summary

Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion to Expedite Hearing or Ruling, filed July 31, 2020 as ECF No. 17 in Association of American Physicians & Surgeons v. Food & Drug Administration, et al., Case No. 1:20-cv-493-RJJ-SJB, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan, Southern Division. The response notes that the plaintiff, AAPS, requested oral argument in the caption of its motion for a preliminary injunction and now moves for an expedited hearing or ruling. Defendants state that the preliminary injunction motion and the motion to dismiss may be resolved on the pleadings without argument, and that if the Court believes argument would be helpful, Defendants gladly would accommodate the Court's preference. It is signed by James W. Harlow, Trial Attorney, U.S. Department of Justice.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons,

Plaintiff,

v.

Food & Drug Administration, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:20-cv-493-RJJ-SJB
Defendants’ Response to Plaintiff’s Motion to Expedite Hearing or Ruling
Plaintiff Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (“AAPS”) requested oral
argument in the caption of its motion for a preliminary injunction. See AAPS PI Mot.,
ECF No. 8. AAPS now “moves for an expedited hearing or ruling on its pending motion
for a preliminary injunction.” AAPS Mot. Expedite, ECF No. 15, PageID.726.
The determination of whether oral argument is necessary to dispose of a motion is
at the court’s discretion. W.D. Mich. LCivR 7.2(d). Defendants believe that both AAPS’s
motion for a preliminary injunction and Defendants’ motion to dismiss may be resolved
on the pleadings without argument. However, if the Court believes that argument
would be helpful, Defendants gladly would accommodate the Court’s preference.

July 31, 2020

OF COUNSEL:

ROBERT P. CHARROW
 General Counsel

Respectfully submitted,

ETHAN P. DAVIS
Acting Assistant Attorney General

MICHAEL D. GRANSTON
 Deputy Assistant Attorney General
 Civil Division
Case 1:20-cv-00493-RJJ-SJB   ECF No. 17 filed 07/31/20   PageID.750   Page 1 of 3

2

STACY CLINE AMIN
 Deputy General Counsel
 U.S. Department of Health
  and Human Services
  Chief Counsel
 Food and Drug Administration

ANNAMARIE KEMPIC
 Deputy Chief Counsel, Litigation

SAMANTHA HONG
SUSAN WILLIAMS
 Associate Chief Counsel
 Office of the General Counsel
 Food and Drug Division
 10903 New Hampshire Avenue
 Silver Spring, MD  20993
GUSTAV W. EYLER
 Director

ANDREW E. CLARK
 Assistant Director

s/ James W. Harlow
JAMES W. HARLOW
 Trial Attorney
 Consumer Protection Branch
 U.S. Department of Justice
 P.O. Box 386
 Washington, DC  20044-0386
 (202) 514-6786
 (202) 514-8742 (fax)
 James.W.Harlow@usdoj.gov

Case 1:20-cv-00493-RJJ-SJB   ECF No. 17 filed 07/31/20   PageID.751   Page 2 of 3

CERTIFICATE OF WORD COUNT COMPLIANCE
Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.2(b)(i), I hereby certify that this response contains
114 words, as calculated by the word count function of Microsoft Word 2016.

July 31, 2020

s/ James W. Harlow

        JAMES W. HARLOW

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that this document, filed through the CM/ECF system, will be sent
via electronic mail to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic
Filing.

July 31, 2020

s/ James W. Harlow

JAMES W. HARLOW

Case 1:20-cv-00493-RJJ-SJB   ECF No. 17 filed 07/31/20   PageID.752   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.miwd.97901.17.0.pdf

Size

65,829 bytes

SHA-256

7b4ccc1ed652a995194f708a7287826e4e4d098cae257f672522c98554a5a5d6

Our copy

gov.uscourts.miwd.97901.17.0.pdf

Original

archive.org