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

Acting 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

15 NORTHERN VALLEY INDIAN HEALTH, No. 2:24-CV-02154-DJC-DMC INC., 16 JOINT STATUS REPORT, STIPULATION, Plaintiff, AND ORDER FOR STAYING CASE 17 v. 18 ROBERT F. KENNEDY, JR.,1 in his official 19 capacity as Secretary, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, et al., 20 Defendants. 21

22 23 Pursuant to the Court’s Order (ECF 13) dated March 13, 2025, the parties provide this status 24 report and stipulate, subject to Court approval, that this action be stayed while the parties work toward 25 informally resolving claims recently recognized by the Supreme Court in Becerra v. San Carlos Apache

26 1 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., was sworn in as the United States Secretary of Health and Human 27 Services on February 13, 2025. Pursuant to Rule 25(d) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, he should be substituted automatically for Xavier Becerra as the defendant in this action. 28 1 Tribe, 602 U.S. 222 (2024); and that the parties file a Joint Status Report on or before October 3, 2025. 2 The reasons for this stipulation are as follows. 3 1. A court may stay proceedings as part of its inherent power “to control the disposition of 4 the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” 5 Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936); see also, e.g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 6 (1997) (“The District Court has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an incident to its power to 7 control its own docket.”). 8 2. This case involves claims for “contract support costs” associated with program income 9 that a Tribal organization expends on health programs that it has contracted to operate under the Indian 10 Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act (“ISDEAA”), 25 U.S.C. §§ 5301–5423. Plaintiff filed 11 this action shortly after the Supreme Court recognized such claims as cognizable under the ISDEAA in 12 Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 602 U.S. 222 (2024). 13 3. Following the Supreme Court’s decision, the Indian Health Service convened meetings of 14 a Contract Support Cost Advisory Group in July and August 2024. In those meetings, Tribal 15 representatives and representatives of the Indian Health Service discussed possible methodologies for 16 determining contract support costs following the Supreme Court’s decision. On September 10, 2024, 17 the Indian Health Service initiated a national consultation seeking feedback from Tribes on the Agency’s 18 proposals to calculate contract support costs related to expenditures of program income.2 19 4. The Indian Health Service’s national consultation with the Tribes concluded in mid- 20 October 2024. Thereafter, the Contract Support Cost Advisory Group reconvened and finalized 21 recommendations for the Director of the Indian Health Service on December 20, 2024.3 22 5. The Indian Health Service has gathered the financial documents in its possession 23 pertaining to the claim asserted in this case for contract support costs for calendar year 2016. The Indian 24 Health Service has also retained an expert to analyze and value the claim. This expert is familiar with 25 2 See Letter from Indian Health Service to Tribal Leaders (Sept. 10, 2024), https://www.ihs.gov/ 26 sites/newsroom/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/2024_Letters/DTLL_091024.pdf. 27 3 Letter from Indian Health Service to Tribal Leaders (Dec. 20, 2024), https://www.ihs.gov/ sites/newsroom/themes/responsive2017/display_objects/documents/2024_Letters/DTLL_12202024.pdf 28 1 the type of claim presented in this action and has assisted the Indian Health Service and other Tribes and 2 Tribal organizations in resolving such claims in light of Becerra v. San Carlos Apache Tribe, 602 U.S. 3 222 (2024). 4 6. The Indian Health Service’s expert completed his preliminary analysis, which yielded 5 five requests for additional information from Plaintiff Northern Valley Indian Health, Inc. Counsel for 6 Defendants sent these requests to Plaintiff’s counsel on March 7, 2025, and Plaintiff’s counsel 7 responded on March 21, 2025. 8 7. The parties are presently negotiating in good faith to attempt to resolve Plaintiff’s claim 9 for contract support costs for calendar year 2016. 10 8. The parties propose filing a Joint Status Report on or before October 3, 2025. 11 12 Dated: June 12, 2025 HOBBS, STRAUS, DEAN & WALKER, LLP 13 By: /s/ Adam P. Bailey (authorized 6/12/2025) ADAM P. BAILEY 14 Attorneys for Plaintiff 15 16 Dated: June 12, 2025 MICHELE BECKWITH Acting United States Attorney 17 By: /s/ Joseph B. Frueh Assistant United States Attorney 19 Attorneys for Defendants 20 22

23 Dated: June 17, 2025 /s/ Daniel J. Calabretta THE HONORABLE DANIEL J. CALABRETTA 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25

26 27 28