Northern Valley Indian Health v. Becerra

Opinion

1 AHdoabmbs ,P S. tBraauilse,y D (eCaAn &B aWr Nalok.e 2r,7 L82L0P8 ) 2 1903 21st St., 3rd Floor Sacramento, CA 95811 3 Phone: (916) 442-9444 Fax: (916) 442-8344 4 Email: abailey@hobbsstraus.com

5 Attorneys for Plaintiff

United States Attorney Assistant United States Attorney 8 501 I Street, Suite 10-100 Sacramento, CA 95814 9 E-mail: joseph.frueh@usdoj.gov Telephone: (916) 554-2702 10 Facsimile: (916) 554-2900

11 Attorneys for Defendants

17 NORTHERN VALLEY INDIAN HEALTH, No. 2:24-CV-02154-DJC-DMC INC., 18 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION, Plaintiff, AND ORDER FOR STAYING CASE 19 v. 20 XAVIER BECERRA, in his official capacity as 21 Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al., 22 Defendants. 23

24 25 26 27 28 2 Pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 9) dated October 8, 2024, the parties provide this status 3 report and stipulate, subject to Court approval, that this action be stayed while the Indian Health Service 4 finalizes its methodology to value claims recently recognized by the Supreme Court in Becerra v. San 5 Carlos Apache Tribe, 144 S. Ct. 1428 (June 6, 2024); and that the parties file a Joint Status Report on or 6 before March 14, 2025. The reasons for this stipulation are as follows. 7 1. A court may stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to control the disposition of 8 the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” 9 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 10 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 11 control its own docket.”). 12 2. This case involves claims for “contract support costs” associated with program income 13 that a Tribal organization expends on health programs that it has contracted to operate under the Indian 14 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 5301–5423. Plaintiff filed 15 this action shortly after the Supreme Court recognized such claims as cognizable under the ISDEAA in 16 Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 144 S. Ct. 1428 (June 6, 2024). 17 3. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Indian Health Service convened meetings of 18 a Contract Support Cost Advisory Group in July and August 2024. In those meetings, Tribal 19 representatives and representatives of the Indian Health Service discussed possible methodologies for 20 determining contract support costs following the Supreme Court’s decision. On September 10, 2024, 21 the Indian Health Service initiated a national consultation seeking feedback from Tribes on the Agency’s 22 proposals to calculate contract support costs related to expenditures of program income.1 23 4. The Indian Health Service’s national consultation with the Tribes concluded in mid- 24 October 2024. Thereafter, the Contract Support Cost Advisory Group reconvened and finalized 25 recommendations for the Director of the Indian Health Service. The Indian Health Service expects to 26 27 1 See Letter from Indian Health Service to Tribal Leaders (Sept. 10, 2024), https://www.ihs.gov/ 28 sites/newsroom/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/2024_Letters/DTLL_091024.pdf. 1 finalize its methodology by the end of December 2024. Once a methodology is adopted, Defendants 2 expect to be able to apply this methodology to Plaintiff’s claims and begin settlement discussions. 3 5. The parties propose filing a Joint Status Report on or before March 14, 2025. 4 5 Dated: December 13, 2024 HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP 6 By: /s/ Adam P. Bailey (authorized 12/13/2024) ADAM P. BAILEY 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 Dated: December 13, 2024 PHILLIP A. TALBERT United States Attorney 10 By: /s/ Joseph B. Frueh Assistant United States Attorney 12 Attorneys for Defendants 13

14 16

17 Dated: December 13, 2024 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 18 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28