United States District Court, D. Columbia.
[Copyrighted Material Omitted]
For M& N PLASTICS, INC., TERRENCE NAGLE, JR., CHRISTOPHER NAGLE, JAMES NAGLE, JOHN MARTIN NAGLE, Plaintiffs: Erin Elizabeth Mersino, THOMAS MORE LAW CENTER, Ann Arbor, MI.
For KATHLEEN SEBELIUS, U.S. DEPT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SVCS, JACK LEW, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, SETH D. HARRIS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, Defendants: Benjamin Leon Berwick, LEAD ATTORNEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, DC.
BERYL A. HOWELL, United States District Judge.
This action challenges the " contraceptive mandate" in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (" ACA" ), Pub. L. 111-148, March 23, 2010, 124 Stat. 119, as a violation of the Free Exercise of Religion, Free Speech, and Free Association Clauses of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, U.S. Const. Am. I, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb et seq., and the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2), see Compl. ¶ ¶ 173-264, ECF No. 2. Pending before the court is the defendants' Motion to Transfer this case, ECF No. 8, under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to the plaintiffs' home district, the Eastern District of Michigan. For the reasons set forth below, the defendants' motion is granted and the case is transferred.
The plaintiffs, M & N Plastics, Inc., Terrence Nagle, Jr., Christopher Nagle, James Nagle, and John Martin Nagle (collectively " the plaintiffs" ) filed this action for declaratory and injunctive relief on May 31, 2013. The plaintiffs seek to enjoin the defendants, the United States Department of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of Health and Human Services, the United States Department of the Treasury, the Secretary of the Treasury, the United States Department of Labor, and the Secretary of Labor (collectively " the defendants" ), from enforcing the ACA's contraceptive coverage mandate (" the contraceptive mandate" ).  The corporate plaintiff is a Michigan corporation and the individual plaintiffs, who own and operate the corporation, appear to be Michigan residents. See Compl. ¶ ¶ 24-25, 30-38 (listing registration of corporate defendant and religious and organizational memberships of individual plaintiffs in Michigan based groups).
This is the second time the plaintiffs have filed this action. The plaintiffs first filed their complaint in their home district, the Eastern District of Michigan, on May 8, 2013. Defs.' Mot. to Transfer Ex. 1 (" Compl., Nagle v. Sebelius, No. 2:13-cv-12036, ECF No. 1) (" Michigan Complaint" ) at 1, ECF No. 8-1. The Michigan Complaint is, in all relevant aspects, identical to the instant complaint. Compare Michigan Complaint with Compl. The plaintiffs voluntarily dismissed the Michigan Complaint just over two weeks later, on May 24, 2013. Defs.' Mot. to Transfer Ex. 2 (" Notice of Voluntary Dismissal, Nagle v. Sebelius, No. 2:13-cv-12036, dated May 24, 2013) at 1, ECF No. 8-2. Almost immediately thereafter, on May 31, 2013, the plaintiffs re-filed their Complaint before this Court. See Compl.
The plaintiffs' declarant explains that after the plaintiffs filed the ...