12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728Plaintiffs allege that CMS’s approval of the SPA was in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1396a(a)(30)(A) (“Section 30(A)”), the Supremacy Clause,
the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and the Privileges and ImmunitiesClause.
Compl. ¶ 32. Plaintiffs further allege that the Secretary’s approval of the SPAviolated the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), 5 U.S.C. § 706 et seq. because theSecretary failed to consider certain factors including the impact of the rate reduction onaccess to and quality of pharmacy services. Id. ¶ 35.On November 7, 2011, plaintiffs filed the present motion seeking a preliminaryinjunction restraining the Director from implementing the rate reduction. Plaintiffs filedan amended motion for preliminary injunction on November 21, 2011. The Courtdenied the Director’s ex parte application to stay the proceedings on December 2, 2011.On December 5, 2011, the Secretary and Director filed separate oppositions.
Plaintiffsreplied on December 9, 2011. The Court heard oral argument on December 19, 2011.After carefully considering the parties’ arguments, the Court finds and concludes asfollows. / / / / / /
U.S. Const. art. VI, cl. 2.
U.S. Const. amend. XIV.
U.S. Const. art. IV, § 2.
Contemporaneously with his opposition, the Director submitted evidentiaryobjections to substantially all of plaintiffs’ declarations in support of their motion forpreliminary injunction. Dkt. No. 26. The Director argues that plaintiffs’ declarations areinadmissible because they are irrelevant, not based on personal knowledge, improperopinion testimony by a lay witness, and include inadmissible hearsay evidence. Id. To theextent the Court relies on evidence contained within plaintiffs’ declarations, as notedbelow, the Director’s objections are overruled. The Director’s other objections areoverruled as moot.
Case 2:11-cv-09211-CAS-MAN Document 46 Filed 12/28/11 Page 3 of 22 Page ID #:1305