National Association of Chain Drug Stores v. Arnold Schwarzenegger, not individually, but solely in his official capacity as…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHAIN
DRUG STORES, and the NATIONAL
COMMUNITY PHARMACISTS
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER, not
individually, but solely in his official
capacity as Governor of the State of
California, KIM BELSHE, not
individually, but solely in her official
capacity as Secretary of the California
Health and Human Services Agency,
DAVID MAXWELL-JOLLY, not
individually, but solely in his official
capacity as Director of the California
Department of Health Care Services, and
THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICES,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 09-57051
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-07097-CAS-
MAN
MEMORANDUM *
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Central District of California
Christina A. Snyder, District Judge, Presiding
FILED
APR 15 2010
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable Nancy Gertner, United States District Judge for the**
District of Massachusetts, sitting by designation.
Whether the appellants are entitled to a permanent injunction that1
would require California to conduct a study to determine whether its
reimbursement formula continues to accord with the factors set forth in 42 U.S.C. §
1396a(a)(30)(A) is a different question. See Orthopaedic Hosp. v. Belshe, 103
F.3d 1491 (9th Cir. 1997). We do not address this issue, leaving it to the district
court to decide in the first instance.
-2-
Submitted April 5, 2010
Pasadena, California
Before: KOZINSKI, Chief Judge, D.W. NELSON, Circuit Judge, and
GERTNER, District Judge.**
Appellants are not entitled to a preliminary injunction because the balance of
equities and considerations of public interest weigh in the appellees’ favor. The
injunction that the appellants seek would require California to recalibrate its
established reimbursement formula to counteract the effect of the reduction in
AWPs. This, in turn, would compel California to bear the administrative burdens
associated with amending its state Medicaid plan. See 42 C.F.R. §§ 430.12-.20.
The state should not be required to take on such burdens before the district court
has finally resolved the merits of the appellants’ claims. Thus, regardless of the
appellants’ likelihood of success on the merits of their claims, they are not entitled
to the preliminary injunction that they seek. Cf. Winter v. Natural Res. Def.1
Council, Inc., 129 S. Ct. 365, 376 (2008) (holding that a preliminary injunction that

-- 2 of 3 --

-3-
interfered with the Navy’s ability to conduct effective, realistic training exercises
was an abuse of discretion regardless of the plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable
injury and likelihood of success on the merits).
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --