Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 26 Filed 02/06/25 Page 1 of 5
`
`RAÚL R. LABRADOR
`ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`JAMES E. M. CRAIG, ISB #6365
`Chief, Civil Litigation
`and Constitutional Defense
`
`Brian V. Church, ISB #9391
`Lead Deputy Attorney General
`David J. Myers, ISB #6528
`Deputy Attorney General
`Office of the Attorney General
`P. O. Box 83720
`Boise, ID 83720-0010
`Telephone: (208) 334-2400
`Facsimile: (208) 854-8073
`james.craig@ag.idaho.gov
`brian.church@ag.idaho.gov
`david.myers@ag.idaho.gov
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF IDAHO
`
`
`
`ST. LUKE’S HEALTH SYSTEM, LTD.,
`
`
`
`Case No. 1:25-cv-00015-BLW
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO
`CONSOLIDATE
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`RAÚL LABRADOR, Attorney General
`of the State of Idaho
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 26 Filed 02/06/25 Page 2 of 5
`
`St. Luke’s has moved the Court to consolidate its case with United States v. Idaho, No.
`
`1:22-cv-00329-BLW (D. Idaho). Dkt. 4. According to St. Luke’s, it is bringing the same claim
`
`based on the same facts and seeking the same relief as the United States v. Idaho litigation, except
`
`that it is seeking such relief against a single official. Dkt. 4-1 at 5.
`
`The Attorney General requests that the Court first address the motion to dismiss but
`
`offers this response should the Court deny that motion.
`
`LEGAL STANDARD
`
`Rule 42 of the Rules of Civil Procedure permits a court to consolidate cases pending
`
`in the same district if they involve common questions of law or fact. Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
`
`According to the Supreme Court of the United States, district courts “enjoy substantial
`
`discretion in deciding whether and to what extent to consolidate cases.” Hall v. Hall, 584 U.S.
`
`59, 77 (2018). District courts “weigh[] the potential for increased efficiency against any
`
`inconvenience, delay, or expense consolidation would cause.” Does I-XIX v. Boy Scouts of Am.,
`
`No. 1:13-cv-00275-BLW, 2017 WL 5571572, at *1 (D. Idaho Nov. 20, 2017) (citing Huene v.
`
`United States, 743 F.2d 703, 704 (9th Cir. 1984)). Ultimately, however, “the party seeking
`
`consolidation bears the burden of establishing that the judicial economy and convenience
`
`benefits of consolidation outweigh any prejudice.” Pizzuto v. Tewalt, No. 1:21-cv-00359-BLW,
`
`2024 WL 1834473, at *2 (D. Idaho Apr. 26, 2024) (cleaned up).
`
`RESPONSE
`
`The Attorney General first requests that the Court rule on his concurrently filed motion
`
`to dismiss before reaching the motion to consolidate. See Wright & Miller, 9A Fed. Prac. &
`
`Proc. Civ. § 2383 (3d ed. June 2024 update) (Westlaw ed.) (remarking that although a motion
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE — 1
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 26 Filed 02/06/25 Page 3 of 5
`
`to consolidate may be made early in litigation, “courts have concluded that consolidation is
`
`premature when motions to dismiss are pending.”); e.g., Sprint Commc’ns, L.P. v. Cox Commc’ns,
`
`Inc., Civ. No. 11-2683-JAR-KMH, 2012 WL 1825222, at *1 (D. Kansas May 18, 2012). The
`
`Attorney General’s motion to dismiss in this suit has raised distinct issues and defenses as
`
`compared to those raised in the United States v. Idaho litigation, and for this reason the motion
`
`to dismiss should be considered first.
`
`Should the Court deny the motion to dismiss, the Attorney General offers the
`
`following observations about St. Luke’s motion to consolidate. First, St. Luke’s motion to
`
`consolidate is ambiguous. The supporting brief speaks of consolidating the cases at one point
`
`but then speaks of not having “duplicative filings” and “a single adjudication of the underlying
`
`claim.” Dkt. 4-1 at 7. The latter phrasing suggests to the Attorney General that St. Luke’s seeks
`
`to merge the actions, rather than consolidate them. Yet, the Supreme Court in Hall v. Hall
`
`made clear that before and after the adoption of Rule of Civil Procedure 42, consolidated
`
`actions do not merge. “From the outset, we understood consolidation not as completely
`
`merging the constituent cases into one, but instead as enabling more efficient case
`
`management while preserving the distinct identities of the cases and the rights of the separate
`
`parties in them.” Hall, 584 U.S. at 67 (holding that one of multiple cases consolidated under
`
`the Rule retains its independent character to the extent it is appealable when finally resolved,
`
`regardless of any ongoing proceedings in the other cases). The Court in Hall relied on its
`
`previous holding in Johnson v. Manhattan Railway Co., 289 U.S. 479, 496–97 (1933), that
`
`“consolidation is permitted as a matter of convenience and economy in administration, but
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE — 2
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 26 Filed 02/06/25 Page 4 of 5
`
`does not merge the suits into a single cause, or change the rights of the parties, or make those
`
`who are parties in one suit parties in another.” Here, merger of the suits is inappropriate.
`
`Second, recognizing the wide discretion afforded to the Court, and the fact that this
`
`action has already been transferred to the same district judge handling the United States v. Idaho
`
`litigation, the Attorney General offers the following: if the Court denies the motion to dismiss,
`
`the Attorney General does not oppose the motion to consolidate, subject to discovery being
`
`permitted to proceed in this action (St. Luke’s v. Labrador) forthwith, and on the condition that
`
`this action not be subject to any stay that is currently in effect in the other action (United States
`
`v. Idaho).
`
`
`DATED: February 6, 2025.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STATE OF IDAHO
`OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
`
`By: /s/ Brian V. Church
`BRIAN V. CHURCH
`Lead Deputy Attorney General
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE — 3
`
`
`
`Case 1:25-cv-00015-BLW Document 26 Filed 02/06/25 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I HEREBY CERTIFY that on February 6, 2025, the foregoing was electronically filed with
`the Clerk of the Court using the CM/ECF system which sent a Notice of Electronic Filing to
`the following persons:
`
`
`Stephen L. Adams
`sadams@gfidaholaw.com
`
`Chad Golder
`cgolder@aha.org
`
`Attorneys for Proposed Amici American
`Hospital
`Association,
`America’s
`Essential Hospitals, and the American
`Association of Medical Colleges
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Wendy J. Olson
`wendy.olson@stoel.com
`
`Alaina Harrington
`alaina.harrington@stoel.com
`
`Lindsay C. Harrison
`lharrison@jenner.com
`
`
`Jessica Ring Amunson
`jamunson@jenner.com
`
`Sophia W. Montgomery
`smontgomery@jenner.com
`
`Ruby C. Giaquinto
`rgiaquinto@jenner.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff St. Luke’s Health
`System
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Brian V. Church
`Brian V. Church
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONSE TO MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE — 4
`
`
