Salazar Ex Rel. Salazar v. District of Columbia
399 U.S. App. D.C. 425
| D.C. Cir. | 2012Background
- Plaintiffs filed a 1993 class action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging DC violated EPSDT Medicaid provisions.
- A 1999 Settlement Order and remedial orders governed DC's EPSDT services and remain in force.
- In 2009, DC moved to terminate the Settlement Order arguing Gonzaga University v. Doe foreclosed a private right of action and that compliance had been achieved.
- The district court denied termination on the private-right-of-action ground but kept open the alternative compliance argument and stayed ruling on it.
- DC appealed the August 2010 order, arguing it refused to dissolve the injunction; plaintiffs sought discovery on compliance while the action remained pending.
- This court dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the August 2010 order did not clearly refuse to dissolve the injunction and lacked the required Carson factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the appeal is jurisdictionally proper under § 1292(a)(1). | Salazar argues the district court refused to dissolve the injunction. | The DC asserts § 1292(a)(1) applies because the order refused to dissolve the injunction. | No jurisdiction; order did not clearly refuse to dissolve. |
| Whether the order had the 'practical effect' of denying dissolution and meets Carson requirements. | Salazar contends the order, by denying one of two grounds, effectively denied dissolution. | DC contends the order did not preclude further ruling and thus lacked practical effect. | Not appealable; failed Carson requirements. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carson v. American Brands, Inc., 450 U.S. 79 (1981) (Carson requirements for appealability of injunction-related orders)
- Switzerland Cheese Ass'n v. Eastern Milling Co., 385 U.S. 23 (1966) (practical-effect approach to 1292(a)(1) review; not always appealable)
- Center for National Security Studies v. CIA, 711 F.2d 409 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (practical-effect analysis; partial decisions may not foreclose appeal)
- Int'l Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc., 849 F.2d 1481 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (clarifies when an order has the 'practical effect' of denying an injunction)
- I.A.M. National Pension Fund Benefit Plan A v. Cooper Indus., Inc., 789 F.2d 21 (D.C. Cir. 1986) (articulates Carson 'predominantly all merits' concept for appealability)
- Western Elec. Co. v. United States, 777 F.2d 23 (D.C. Cir. 1985) (reiterates irreparable-harm considerations in Carson analysis)