Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
4Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
OPM Opposition Brief in Golinsky v. OPM, No. 10-00257 (N.D.Cal. 03-12-10)

OPM Opposition Brief in Golinsky v. OPM, No. 10-00257 (N.D.Cal. 03-12-10)

Ratings: (0)|Views: 255 |Likes:
Published by Michael Ginsborg

More info:

Categories:Types, Research, Law
Published by: Michael Ginsborg on Mar 12, 2010
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

10/31/2012

pdf

text

original

 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728MICHAEL F. HERTZDeputy Assistant Attorney GeneralJOSEPH P. RUSSONIELLOUnited States AttorneySUSAN K. RUDYAssistant Branch Director STEVEN Y. BRESSLER Trial AttorneyUnited States Department of JusticeCivil Division, Federal Programs BranchP.O. Box 883Washington, D.C. 20044Telephone: (202) 305-0167Facsimile: (202) 616-8470Email:Steven.Bressler@usdoj.gov Attorneys for Defendantsthe U.S. Office of Personnel Management and John BerryUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIAOAKLAND DIVISIONKAREN GOLINSKIPlaintiff,v.THE UNITED STATES OFFICE OFPERSONNEL MANAGEMENT andJOHN BERRY, Director of the Office of Personnel Management, in his officialcapacity,Defendants. ____________________________________ ))))))))))))))) No. C 4:10-00257-SBA
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TOPLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR APRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date:June 15, 2010Time:1:00 p.m.Place:Courtroom 1, 4th Floor U.S. Courthouse, 1301 Clay St.Oakland, California 94612
Case4:10-cv-00257-SBA Document37 Filed03/12/10 Page1 of 33
 
12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728
 
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGETABLE OF AUTHORITIES......................................................iiiINTRODUCTION..............................................................1BACKGROUND...............................................................2A.FEHBP and the Plaintiffs Enrollment Effort..........................2B.The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council and Its EDR Plan....................3C.Procedural History.............................................4ARGUMENT..................................................................6I.Standard Of Review..................................................6II.Plaintiff Is Not Likely To Succeed On Her Mandamus Claim...................7A.Mandamus Is Not Available To Plaintiff Because OPMIs Not Under A Clear Duty To Act...............................71.The United States Has Not Waived Its SovereignImmunity For The Executive To Be Bound By AnAdministrative EDR Order.................................72.The EDR Panel Is An Administrative, Not AJudicial, Body...........................................83.Congress Has Not Vested Administrative EDPanels With Authority To Bind Federal AgenciesOutside The Judiciary.....................................9a.The Statutory Authorization Of The MeritSystems Protection Board Does Not Empower EDR Panels To Direct Executive Agencies...............10 b.The Congressional Accountability Act Did NotVest Administrative EDR Panels With TheAuthority To Direct Executive Agencies.................12c.The AOUSC Personnel Act Does NotEmpower EDR Panels To Direct ExecutiveAgencies........................................124.Congress Has Vested OPM With The AuthorityTo Interpret And Apply The Federal HealthEmployee Benefits Act...................................14
 Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary InjunctionCiv. No. 4:10257SBA
i
Case4:10-cv-00257-SBA Document37 Filed03/12/10 Page2 of 33
 
123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627285.Constitutional Separation Of Powers PrinciplesDo Not Authorize EDR Panels To Direct ExecutiveAgencies’ Statutorily-Authorized AdministrationOf Federal Programs.....................................156.OPM Also Cannot Be Bound By The EDR OrdeBecause It Was Not A Party To The EDR Proceedings...........17B.Mandamus Is Unavailable Because Any Duty By OPM ToComply With An Administrative, Intra-Judicial EDR Order Is,At A Minimum, Not Free From Doubt.............................19C.Mandamus Is Inappropriate Because Plaintiff Has Adequate,Alternative Remedies At Law....................................19D.Even If Mandamus Were Otherwise Appropriate, The CourtShould Decline To Mandamus OPM Under These Circumstances.........21III.Plaintiff Has Failed To Establish She Will Suffer Cognizable, Non-Speculative Irreparable Harm Absent An Emergency Injunction.............22A.Plaintiff’s Monetary Injuries Do Not ConstituteIrreparable Harm.............................................22B.Plaintiff Cannot Rely Upon Any Presumption Of Irreparable Harm.............................................23C.Plaintiff’s Own Delay Undercuts Her Claims Of Irreparable Harm.............................................24IV.The Balance Of Harms Militates Against Entry Of APreliminary Injunction................................................24CONCLUSION...............................................................25
 Defendants’ Memorandum in Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary InjunctionCiv. No. 4:10257SBA
ii
Case4:10-cv-00257-SBA Document37 Filed03/12/10 Page3 of 33

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Debbie Huon liked this
dbarron617 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->