Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong

Ninth Circuit

Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong

788 F.3d 991, 2015 WL 3540552

Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit·Decided May 14, 2015·No. 12-35382·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

ORDER

The Idaho Attorney General’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The order filed on May 14, 2015, is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended order. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is therefore DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED ORDER

The original decision entered by this court, reported at 567 Fed.Appx. 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied private right of action and that Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now specifically addressed the question our court had previously addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the district court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil *992 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

The Idaho Attorney General’s Petition for Panel Rehearing is GRANTED. The order filed on May 14, 2015, is withdrawn and replaced with the accompanying amended order. The Petition for Rehearing En Banc is therefore DENIED as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

AMENDED ORDER

The original decision entered by this court, reported at 567 Fed.Appx. 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause does not provide an implied private right of action and that Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 1378, 191 L.Ed.2d 471 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now specifically addressed the question our court had previously addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep. Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v. Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir.2003) (en banc). In accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the district court to dismiss the Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil *992 Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong, 788 F.3d 991, 2015 WL 3540552 (9th Cir. 2015).

Pincite

788 F.3d 991 (Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related