Case: Lavin v. Husted

1:10-cv-01986 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio

Filed Date: Sept. 3, 2010

Closed Date: 2013

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

This case was brought by physicians who served poor patients through the Medicaid program in Ohio. They filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 3, 2010, against the Secretary of State, challenging a state law that made it a crime for attorney-general or county-prosecutor candidates to accept campaign contributions from Medicaid providers or any person having an ownership interest in the provider. The plaintiffs intended to donate money to then-cand…

This case was brought by physicians who served poor patients through the Medicaid program in Ohio. They filed a suit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio on September 3, 2010, against the Secretary of State, challenging a state law that made it a crime for attorney-general or county-prosecutor candidates to accept campaign contributions from Medicaid providers or any person having an ownership interest in the provider. The plaintiffs intended to donate money to then-candidate for Ohio Attorney General Cordray's campaign but feared prosecution. The cause of action in this case was 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. They also alleged that the Statute in question violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments.

On October 27, 2010, the District Court (Judge Donald C. Nugent) denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Lavin v. Brunner, 2010 WL 4340981 (N.D. Ohio Oct. 27, 2010). After discovery, both parties filed motions for summary judgment.

On July 22, 2011, Judge Nugent granted summary judgment for the defendant and the plaintiffs appealed. Lavin v. Husted, 803 F. Supp. 2d 756 (N.D. Ohio 2011) rev'd and remanded, 689 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (Judge Raymond M. Kethledge) reversed the lower court's decision on August 3, 2012, holding that the Statute here violated the plaintiffs' First Amendment interests. Lavin v. Husted, 689 F.3d 543 (6th Cir. 2012). As a general rule for contribution limits to be permissible, the government needs to show that the limits are closely drawn to serve a sufficiently important state interest. The Court found that the contribution ban that applied to all Medicaid providers was not closely drawn to serve the important state interests to prevent corruption and fraud committed by only a handful of them.

On September 11, 2012, the District Court in its Judgment declared the Statute unconstitutional in its entirety, in violation of the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court further issued a permanent injunction, prohibiting the Secretary of State from enforcing the Statute against candidates to whom the named plaintiffs may elect to donate money or the plaintiffs themselves.

On June 13, 2013, the Court awarded attorneys' fees and litigation costs in sum of $135,223.74 to the plaintiffs. Lavin v. Husted, 2013 WL 2950334 (N.D. Ohio June 13, 2013). This ended the case.

Summary Authors

Emma Bao (7/3/2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5678573/parties/lavin-v-husted/


Judge(s)

Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Tennessee)

Donald, Bernice Bouie (Tennessee)

Kethledge, Raymond M. (Michigan)

Nugent, Donald C. (Ohio)

Vecchiarelli, Nancy A. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)

Murray, J. Michael (Ohio)

Screen, Donald P. (Ohio)

Sletvold, Ashlie Case (Ohio)

Vasvari, Raymond V. Jr. (Ohio)

Judge(s)

Daughtrey, Martha Craig (Tennessee)

Donald, Bernice Bouie (Tennessee)

Kethledge, Raymond M. (Michigan)

Nugent, Donald C. (Ohio)

Vecchiarelli, Nancy A. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Chandra, Subodh (Ohio)

Murray, J. Michael (Ohio)

Screen, Donald P. (Ohio)

Sletvold, Ashlie Case (Ohio)

Vasvari, Raymond V. Jr. (Ohio)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Coglianese, Richard N. (Ohio)

Meterko, Mark R. (Ohio)

Richardson, Ryan L (Ohio)

Schneider, Karl H. (Ohio)

Schuler, Michael J. (Ohio)

Other Attorney(s)

Bashein, W. Craig (Ohio)

King, James A. (Ohio)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Gupta, Sandhya (Ohio)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

DOCKET [Pacer]

Lavin v. Brunner

June 13, 2013 Docket
1

Complaint for Declaratory Judgment, Preliminary and Permanent Injunctive Relief, and Attorneys' Fees and Costs

Lavin v. Brunner

Sept. 3, 2010 Complaint
2

Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction

Lavin v. Brunner

Sept. 4, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
17

Report and Recommendation [Advocating Granting Preliminary Injunction]

Lavin v. Brunner

2010 WL 4341158

Oct. 12, 2010 Magistrate Report/Recommendation
20

Plaintiffs' Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Reccommendation

Lavin v. Brunner

Oct. 19, 2010 Pleading / Motion / Brief
24

Memorandum Order and Judgment [Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction]

Lavin v. Brunner

2010 WL 4340981

Oct. 27, 2010 Order/Opinion
51

Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

March 16, 2011 Pleading / Motion / Brief
52

Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permenent Injunction

Lavin v. Brunner

March 16, 2011 Pleading / Motion / Brief
72

Order [Granting Motion to Quash Subpoenas]

Lavin v. Brunner

May 16, 2011 Order/Opinion
79

Memorandum Opinion [Granting Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment]

Lavin v. Brunner

803 F.Supp.2d 756

July 22, 2011 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5678573/lavin-v-husted/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
17

Report and Recommendation that 2 Plaintiffs motion should be granted and a preliminary injunction against enforcement of Ohio Rev. Code § 3599.45 should issue. By 15 stipulation of the parties, objections to this Report and Recommend ation must be filed within 7 days after the party objecting has been served; Responses must be filed within three 3 days thereafter. Objections to R&R due by 10/19/2010; Responses due 10/22/2010. Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli on 10/12/2010. (G,W)

Oct. 12, 2010 RECAP
24

Memorandum Opinion and Order not adopting 17 Report and Recommendation and denying 2 plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Donald C. Nugent (C,KA)

Oct. 27, 2010 RECAP
79

Memorandum Opinion For the reasons stated in the Order, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and Permanent Injunction 52 is denied and Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment 51 is granted. This action is terminated. Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 7/22/11. (K,K) Modified text on 7/22/2011 (B,B).

July 22, 2011 RECAP
127

Report and Recommendation re 97 Plaintiffs' Motion for attorney fees and costs. For the reasons given in the R&R, Plaintiffs' costs and fees should be awarded after deductions are made from Plaintiffs' request. Objections to R&R due by 2/26/2013. Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli on 2/12/2012. (Attachments: # 1 Appeal, # 2 Discovery) (G,W)

1 Appeal

View on PACER

2 Discovery

View on PACER

Feb. 12, 2013 RECAP
139

Memorandum Opinion and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli (ECF # 127 ) is Adopted in Part and Not Adopted in Part. Plaintiffs' Motion for Attorneys' Fees (ECF #[ 97]) is granted in the total amount of $128,908.74. The Court further adopts the reasoning of Magistrate Judge Vecchiarelli with regard to the recommended cuts to the costs requested by Plaintiffs' attorneys with one exception. Plaintiffs 039; request for the cost of serving a third party subpoena on Kroger Co., in the amount of $127.03, will be denied as it was served after the discovery cutoff date. Subtracting $127.03 from $6,442.03 results in a final cost award of $6,315.00. These costs are reasonable and supported by the evidence. Plaintiffs' Bill of Costs is terminated as moot. (ECF # 99 ). Signed by Judge Donald C. Nugent on 6/13/2013. (K,K) Modified text and links on 6/14/2013 (B,B).

June 13, 2013 RECAP
168

Report and Recommendation that 161 Plaintiffs' Motion for attorney fees and costs be granted in part and denied in part. Objections to R&R due by 4/14/2015. Magistrate Judge Nancy A. Vecchiarelli on 3/31/2015. (G,W)

March 31, 2015 RECAP
181

Memorandum of Opinion and Order For the reasons set forth herein, Plaintiffs' Objections (ECF No. 172 ) are overruled and the substantive portions of the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 168 ) of the Magistrate Judge are hereby adopt ed. The calculation of attorneys' fees is modified to 2% greater than that recommended by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiffs' Motion for Fees and Costs Incurred Prosecuting Their Attorneys' Fees Motion ("Fees-for-Fees Motion&qu ot;) (ECF No. 161 ) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiffs are awarded a total of $22,731.78 in fees ($454,635.53 x 5%) and $9,531.48 ($14,943.98 - $5,412.50) in costs for the litigation related to Plaintiffs' original request for fees in this matter. Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 8/31/2015. (JLG)

Aug. 31, 2015 RECAP
190

Order

May 10, 2018 PACER
191

Judgment on Attorney Fees

1 Judgment Entry with Correct Date

View on PACER

May 10, 2018 PACER

State / Territory: Ohio

Case Type(s):

Speech and Religious Freedom

Key Dates

Filing Date: Sept. 3, 2010

Closing Date: 2013

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Physicians who served poor patients through the Medicaid program in Ohio.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

State of Ohio, State

Defendant Type(s):

Law-enforcement

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Freedom of speech/association

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Monetary Relief

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Attorneys fees

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Litigation

Amount Defendant Pays: $135,223.74

Order Duration: 2012 - None

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied

Issues

General:

Funding