Skip to content

Judicial Watch • 41413 Kawa reply brief 10296

41413 Kawa reply brief 10296

41413 Kawa reply brief 10296

Page 1: 41413 Kawa reply brief 10296

Category:General

Number of Pages:8

Date Created:April 11, 2014

Date Uploaded to the Library:April 14, 2014

Tags:#obamacare, Kawa


File Scanned for Malware

Donate now to keep these documents public!

  • demand_answers

See Generated Text   ˅

Autogenerated text from PDF

No. 14-10296 THE UNITED STATES COURT APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT  
KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP, 
Plaintiff-Appellant, 
SECRETARY, U.S. DEPARTMENT THE TREASURY, al., 
Defendants-Appellees. APPEAL FROM THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT FLORIDA 
REPLY BRIEF APPELLANT 
KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP 
Paul Orfanedes Christopher Lunny Michael Bekesha RADEY, THOMAS, YON CLARK, P.A. JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. Suite 200 425 Third Street, S.W., Suite 800 301 South Bronough Street Washington, 20024 Tallahassee, Florida 32301 
(202) 646-5172 (850) 425-6654 
Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
 
TABLE CONTENTS PAGE 
TABLE CONTENTS............................................................................................i
 CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE
 CERTIFICATE SERVICE
 
TABLE CITATIONS .........................................................................................
 
ARGUMENT .............................................................................................................2
 
CONCLUSION..........................................................................................................3
 
523 U.S. 382 (1998) ........................................................................................2
 
Ashcroft 
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622 (2009) .....................................................................1
 
Till 
SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465 (2004) .........................................................2
 
Other Authorities 
Herwitz Barrett, Accounting for Lawyers 221 (2d ed. 1997) ....................2
 
Encyclopedia Banking Finance 1015 (9th ed. 1991) .......................................2
 

TABLE CITATIONS 
Cases Page 
Atlanta Mut. Ins.Co. Commr,
 
ARGUMENT determine whether claim plausible, court must draw its judicial experience and commonsense. Ashcroft Iqbal, 556 U.S. 622, 679 (2009). Kawa Orthos standing claim just plain commonsense. Defendants meek response halfhearted because Kawa Orthos claim obvious and its Complaint clearly sufficient establish standing. 
Based the plain language the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, the employer mandate was set take effect January 2014. Because Kawa Ortho employs more than full-time equivalent employees, had comply with the mandate January 2014 face substantial tax penalties. Being responsible employer, Kawa Ortho spent time and money 2013 comply with the mandate taking effect January 2014. also incurred substantial opportunity costs. Defendants subsequently delayed the date for compliance until January 2015. They then delayed second time. The mandate now takes effect 2016. 
Being rational employer well reasonable one, Kawa Ortho would not have expended its time and money 2013 was not required comply with the mandate until 2016. would have spent its time other priorities, including generating new patients and additional revenue for its practice. would have saved its money and accrued interest it, put other uses.
 
A dollar today worth more than dollar tomorrow. Atlanta Mut. Ins. Co. Commr, 523 U.S. 382, 384 (1998) (quoting Herwitz Barrett, Accounting for Lawyers 221 (2d ed. 1997)). Or, Justice Thomas described it, To put simply, $4,000 today worth more than $4,000 received months from today because received today, the $4,000 can invested start earning interest immediately. Till SCS Credit Corp., 541 U.S. 465, 487 (2004) (Thomas, J., dissenting) (citing Encyclopedia Banking Finance 1015 (9th ed. 1991)).  Delay undermines the time value money. 
Had the mandate taken effect the date established Congress, Kawa Ortho would have realized the full value the time and money spent 2013 comply with the mandate January 2014. Defendants delay the mandate least two years made Kawa Orthos expenditures premature. Defendants assertion that those expenditures may still have value whenever the mandate finally takes effect demonstrates lack understanding basic economic principles, not cavalier indifference for how businesses operate. Employers not spend money two years before they have to. also ignores the express allegation Kawa Orthos Complaint that lost some, not all, the value the expenditures incurred 2013 anticipation the mandate taking effect January 2014. Doc. No.  16.
 
Kawa Ortho suffered injury-in-fact that directly traceable Defendants delay the employer mandate. Kawa Orthos injury redressable favorable ruling. the delay set aside, Kawa Orthos efforts will not have been vain. will regain some, not all, the value the time and resources expended 2013, and the opportunity costs incurred will not have been wasted. Kawa Ortho has standing challenge Defendants delay the mandate. 

CONCLUSION 
For the reasons set forth its opening brief well the foregoing reasons, 
Kawa Ortho respectfully requests that the Court reverse the District Courts order 
granting the motion dismiss and remand this matter for further proceedings. 
Dated: April 11, 2014 Respectfully submitted, 
/s/ Christopher Lunny /s/ Paul Orfanedes Christopher Lunny Paul Orfanedes RADEY, THOMAS, YON CLARK, P.A. 301 South Bronough Street, Suite 200 /s/ Michael Bekesha Tallahassee, Florida  32301 Michael Bekesha 
(850) 425-6654 (phone) JUDICIAL WATCH, INC. 
(805) 425-6694 (facsimile) 425 Third Street, SW, Suite 800 chris@radeylaw.com Washington,  20024 
(202) 
646-5172 (phone) 

(202) 
646-5199 (facsimile) porfanedes@judicialwatch.org mbekesha@judicialwatch.org 

Counsel for Plaintiff-Appellant
 
CERTIFICATE COMPLIANCE This brief complies with the type-volume limitation Fed. App. 32(a)(7)(B) because contains 595 words, excluding the parts the brief exempted Fed. App. 32(a)(7)(B)(iii). This brief complies with the typeface requirements Fed. App. 32(a)(5) and the type style requirements Fed. App. 32(a)(6) because this brief has been prepared proportionally spaced typeface using Microsoft Word 2010, namely, point Times New Roman. Dated: April 11, 2014 /s/ Michael Bekesha 
CERTIFICATE SERVICE hereby certify that electronically filed the foregoing REPLY BRIEF APPELLANT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP with the Clerk the Court for the United States Court Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit using the appellate CM/ECF system April 11, 2014. also certify that served original and six copies the foregoing REPLY BRIEF APPELLANT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP the Clerk the Court for the United States Court Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit via Federal Express, overnight delivery, April 11, 2014. further certify that, April 11, 2014, served the foregoing REPLY BRIEF APPELLANT KAWA ORTHODONTICS, LLP via Federal Express, overnight delivery, all counsel listed below. 
Dana Martin
 Mark Stern 

U.S. Department Justice Civil Division, Appellate Staff 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Room 7246 Washington,  20530 
Dated: April 11, 2014 Michael Bekesha



Sign Up for Updates!