Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document20 Filed02/03/10 Page1 of 3

1 JAMES R. McGUIRE (CA SBN 189275)

JMcGuire@mofo.com
2 GREGORY P. DRESSER (CA SBN 136532)
GDresser@mofo.com
3 RITA F. LIN (CA SBN 236220)
RLin@mofo.com
4 GRACE Y. PARK (CA SBN 239928)
GracePark@mofo.com
5 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP
425 Market Street
6 San Francisco, California 94105-2482
Telephone: 415.268.7000
7 Facsimile: 415.268.7522
8 JENNIFER C. PIZER (CA SBN 152327)
JPizer@lambdalegal.org
9 LAMBDA LEGAL, Western Regional Office
3325 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 1300
10 Los Angeles, CA 90010-1729
Telephone: 213.382.7600
11 Facsimile: 213.351.6050
12 Attorneys for Plaintiff
KAREN GOLINSKI
13

14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

15 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

16

17 KAREN GOLINSKI, Case No. 4:10-cv-00257 (SBA)

18 Plaintiff, PLAINTIFF KAREN

GOLINSKI’S STATEMENT IN
19 v. RESPONSE TO OPM’S
OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE
20 UNITED STATES OFFICE OF PERSONNEL APPLICATION FOR ORDER
MANAGEMENT, SHORTENING TIME FOR
21 NOTICE AND HEARING
Defendant. MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY
22 INJUNCTION (FED. R. CIV. P.
6(c)(1)(C))
23
Date: June 15, 2010
24 Time: 1:00 p.m.
Place: Courtroom 1, 4th Floor
25 United States Courthouse
1301 Clay Street
26 Oakland, California 94612

27

28

STATEMENT RE OPM’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APP. FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME

pa-1383837
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document20 Filed02/03/10 Page2 of 3

1 Plaintiff Karen Golinski responds to the two arguments raised in Defendant United States
2 Office of Personnel Management’s (“OPM’s”) opposition to her ex parte application. (See Opp’n
3 [DKT. No. 17].) On January 27, Ms. Golinski moved ex parte for an order shortening time for
4 notice and hearing her motion for preliminary injunction. (See Application [DKT. No. 13].)
5 Ms. Golinski seeks to preliminarily enjoin OPM from violating Orders duly issued by the Chief
6 Judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which directed OPM to rescind
7 its directive to Ms. Golinski’s insurance carrier and to refrain from any further interference with
8 Ms. Golinski’s enrollment of her spouse in her family health care plan. (See Mot. [DKT. No. 8].)
9 First, the prejudice OPM claims it will suffer if Ms. Golinski’s motion is heard on
10 shortened time is an unfairness of its own making. The Chief Judge, in November 2009, invited
11 OPM to “appeal so much of this order as concerns it using the procedures outlined in the [EDR]
12 plan.” See In the Matter of Karen Golinski, et ux, 587 F.3d 956, 964 (9th Cir. 2009). OPM
13 decided that it would not appeal that Order, and OPM did not seek additional time from the Chief
14 Judge to fully prepare a petition for review. In fact, OPM has had almost three months since the
15 issuance of the November 2009 Order to appeal, to seek additional time to respond, or to respond
16 to the Order against it. OPM has instead decided to do nothing, and it is now foreclosed from
17 litigating before this Court the purportedly complicated “matters of first impression” raised in the
18 Chief Judge’s prior orders, since those orders are final and preclusive as to it. (Opp’n at 3:6-12.)
19 Second, OPM’s claim that Ms. Golinski has failed to make a showing of irreparable harm
20 under Civ. L.R. 6-3 ignores reality and the facts of this case. Fundamentally, OPM tosses aside
21 the real risk and related anxiety that any uninsured or underinsured family faces fearing that a
22 loved one will become ill or suffer an injury for which necessary treatment will not be fully
23 insured or which will entail devastating costs.
24 Moreover, Ms. Golinski’s ex parte application and preliminary injunction motion describe
25 in detail, and the Chief Judge found, that it is impossible for Ms. Golinski to find an insurance
26 plan on the private market for her spouse that provides the same benefits as Ms. Golinski’s
27 federal employee health care plan. (See, e.g., Mot. at 10:1-17; Application at 2:4-9.) This means
28 that Ms. Golinski simply cannot, as OPM suggests, “seek relief for future costs incurred” because
1
STATEMENT RE OPM’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APP. FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME
pa-1383837
 Case3:10-cv-00257-JSW Document20 Filed02/03/10 Page3 of 3

1 no amount of money can provide the kind of health care coverage Ms. Golinski’s spouse should
2 receive under her federal employee health plan. (Opp’n at 4:8-9.)
3 Finally, what is the mad rush OPM complains about? Under Local Rule 7-2, defendant
4 OPM would ordinarily be afforded 35 days notice and 14 days to prepare an opposition brief.
5 Ms. Golinski’s ex parte application seeks 28 days notice and would preserve 14 days for OPM to
6 file an opposition brief.
7 If the Court cannot hear Ms. Golinski’s preliminary injunction motion on the date sought
8 in the ex parte Application, which is February 23, 2010, Ms. Golinski is amenable to an earlier
9 alternative to the current hearing date, which is almost five months from now, on June 15, 2010.1
10

11 Dated: February 3, 2010 MORRISON & FOERSTER LLP

12 LAMBDA LEGAL
13

14 By: /s/ James R. McGuire

JAMES R. McGUIRE
15
Attorneys for Plaintiff
16 KAREN GOLINSKI
17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26 1
Indeed, the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit has stayed proceedings pending
resolution of this matter, and ordered Ms. Golinski to report to it the status of the hearing date for
27 the preliminary injunction.
28
2
STATEMENT RE OPM’S OPPOSITION TO EX PARTE APP. FOR ORDER SHORTENING TIME
pa-1383837