Case: Richwine v. Matuszak
1:23-cv-00370 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana
Filed Date: Aug. 30, 2023
Closed Date: June 11, 2026
Clearinghouse coding complete
Case Summary
This is a case challenging Indiana's efforts to restrict a death care advocate's ability to speak with individuals about their end-of-life options.
On August 30, 2023, a company called Death Done Differently LLC and its owner filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Indiana in the Fort Wayne Division. Through Death Done Differently, the plaintiff is a “community death care advocate” who seeks to inform the dying and their families of all their options regarding death care in Indiana. The plaintiffs sued members of the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service in their official capacities, the Attorney General of Indiana in his official capacity, and the Executive Director of the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency (IPLA) in her official capacity, asserting First Amendment violations. Represented by Institute for Justice and Kroger Gardis & Regas, LLP, the plaintiffs alleged that the Board launched an investigation into the business under Indiana's Embalmers and Funeral Directors Laws, even though the owner had never held herself out as a licensed funeral director or engaged in conduct requiring such a license. The plaintiffs further alleged that the Board ordered the owner and her company to cease and desist from advising adults about death care unless the owner obtained both a funeral-director license and a funeral home license, both of which were difficult to obtain. The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief barring enforcement of Indiana’s funeral laws as applied to the plaintiffs, along with attorney’s fees. The case was assigned to District Judge Holly A. Brady.
That same day, the plaintiffs filed a motion for a preliminary injunction barring the enforcement of the Board’s cease-and-desist order against them. They argued that the defendants’ enforcement of Indiana’s funeral-licensing scheme likely violated the First Amendment, that they would suffer irreparable harm without preliminary relief, and that the balance of equities and the public interest weighed in their favor.
On December 19, 2023, the court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Brady held that the licensing scheme imposed a content-based restriction on speech, which required strict scrutiny. The court also determined that the state did not demonstrate a compelling interest in public health or consumer protection that justified the restriction, nor did the state narrowly tailor the restriction. 707 F.Supp.3d 782.
On January 18, 2024, the defendants filed a notice of appeal of the court’s December 19 order granting a preliminary injunction to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That same day, the defendants filed a motion to stay district court proceedings pending resolution of the defendants’ appeal.
On January 22, 2024, the district court granted the defendants’ motion for a stay of proceedings pending the Seventh Circuit’s resolution of the defendants’ appeal.
On March 1, 2024, the Seventh Circuit remanded to the district court with instructions to enter an injunction that complied with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, requiring a separate document stating what the district court directs. Four days later, the district court issued a new preliminary injunction order outlining what actions constituted prohibited enforcement of the cease-and-desist order.
On August 28, 2025, the Seventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s preliminary injunction and remanded for further proceedings. The court held that the state failed to show how prohibiting the plaintiffs from advising and educating individuals about end-of-life options would further a state interest of protecting consumers and the public. 148 F.4th 942.
On September 25, 2025, the parties requested the district court to stay proceedings until December 5, 2025, to provide the board member defendants with time to decide whether to seek review in the U.S. Supreme Court of the Seventh Circuit’s decision. The court granted the stay the next day.
After multiple extensions of the district court stay, on May 12, 2026, the parties notified the district court that they had reached a settlement. Under the terms of the settlement, the parties agreed to allow the district court to convert the preliminary injunction into a permanent injunction. On June 11, 2026, the court approved the parties’ settlement.
Summary Authors
Alexis Gil (8/18/2026)
People
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67746791/parties/richwine-v-matuszak/
Attorney, David Ian
Attorney, Christian W.
Attorney, Jeffrey Rowes,
Attorney, Evan Matthew
Attorney, John Kappos,
Documents in the Clearinghouse
Docket
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67746791/richwine-v-matuszak/
Last updated Sept. 16, 2026, 5:45 a.m.
Docket for: Richwine v. Matuszak
Case Details
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Key Dates
Filing Date: Aug. 30, 2023
Closing Date: June 11, 2026
Case Ongoing: No
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Plaintiff is a person whose business, Death Done Differently, LLC, helps advise and guide families through the deeply personal choices surrounding both the end of life and being remembered after life.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Attorney Organizations:
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
State
Attorney General of Indiana
Executive Director of the Indiana Professional Licensing Agency
Members of the Indiana State Board of Funeral and Cemetery Service
Facility Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Ex parte Young (federal or state officials)
Constitutional Clause(s):
Other Dockets:
Northern District of Indiana 1:23-cv-00370
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit 24-01081
Available Documents:
Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief
Outcome
Prevailing Party: Plaintiff OR Mixed
Relief Sought:
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Medical/Mental Health Care:
End of life choice and DNR orders
Case Summary of Richwine v. Matuszak, Civil Rights Litig. Clearinghouse, https://clearinghouse.net/case/46906/ (last updated 8/18/2026).