Heartland Hospital v. Thompson (2004)

The district court denied that motion, Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 15 (D.D.C.2004) (Heartland II), and we affirmed because “even if Heartland I vacated the rural area requirement, the only obligation it expressly imposed on the agency was to consider the two alternatives suggested during the comment period,” Heartland Reg’l Med.

The court will grant a motion to enforce a judgment “when a prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it, even if the noncompliance was due to misinterpretation of the judgment.” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 11 (D.D.C.2004); see also Hanover Ins.

A motion to enforce should be granted if a “prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 11 (D.D.C.2004).

Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 9 (D.D.C. 2004) (.Heartland II).

A court “should grant a motion to enforce if a ‘prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.’” Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 61 F. Supp. 3d 35, 39 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C 2004)).

Fundamental to that authority is the power of the Court “to construe and interpret the language of the judgment.” Anglers Conservation Network v. Ross, 387 F. Supp. 3d 87, 93 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11-12 (D.D.C. 2004)).

“A motion to enforce should be granted if a ‘prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.’” Flaherty, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 55 (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

“The court will grant a motion to enforce a judgment ‘when a prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it, even if the noncompliance was due to misinterpretation of the judgment.’” GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT 582 , 587–88, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1272 (2015) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

A. Standard of Review “District courts have the authority to” interpret and “enforce the terms of their mandates.” Flaherty v. Pritzker, 17 F. Supp. 3d 52, 55 (D.D.C. 2014); Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004).

DISCUSSION The court grants motions to enforce a judgment “when a prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it, even if the noncompliance was due to misinterpretation of the judgment.” GPX Int’l Tire Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT __ , __, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1272 (2015) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.C.

Court No. 19-00009 Page 9 judgment.” GPX Int'l Tire Corp. v. United States, 39 CIT ___ , ___, 70 F. Supp. 3d 1266, 1272 (2015) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

A court should grant a motion to enforce the judgment if a “prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.” Flaherty, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 55 (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

A court asked to enforce a prior order should grant the motion when a “prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.’” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004); see also Flaherty, 17 F. Supp. 3d at 55 .

See Colonial Auto Ctr. v. Tomlin (In re Tomlin), 105 F.3d 933, 940 (4th Cir. 1997) (finding that bankruptcy dismissal order was ambiguous where the order stated that debtor’s petition was dismissed with prejudice “for the reasons' set forth” in the trustee’s motion); Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 12 (D.D.C. 2004) (concluding that judgment was ambiguous where judgment remanded case to administrative agency “for action consistent with the'foregoing opinion”).

A motion to; enforce may be granted when a “plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004).

Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 11 (D.D.C.2004), aff'd sub nom.

The Court should grant a motion to enforce if a “prevailing plaintiff demonstrates that a defendant has not complied with a judgment entered against it.” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 11 (D.D.C.2004).

See, e.g., Baystate, 587 F. Supp. 2d at 38 (remand warranted where aspects of the Secretary’s decision were “inadequately explained”); see id. at 42-43 (in its application of the deferential APA standard of review, “the [court] must be satisfied that the agency has ‘examine[d] the relevant data and articulate[d] a satisfactory explanation for its action including a rational connection between the facts found and the choice made.’”) (citations and internal quotations omitted)…

APA ... allows courts only to ‘hold unlawful and set aside’ illegal agency action.” Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F.Supp.2d 8, 14 (D.D.C.2004).

See Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 61 F. Supp. 3d 35, 39 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[I]f a plaintiff ‘has received all relief required by that prior judgment, the motion to enforce [should be] denied.’”) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

See Sierra Club v. McCarthy, 61 F. Supp. 3d 35, 39 (D.D.C. 2014) (“[I]f a plaintiff ‘has received all relief required by that prior judgment, the motion to enforce [should be] denied.’”) (quoting Heartland Hosp. v. Thompson, 328 F. Supp. 2d 8, 11 (D.D.C. 2004)).

Cal. Aug. 2, 2019) (settlement funds diverted to sister prior to 6 submission of IFP application indicating plaintiff had not received any money from any other 7 sources in the prior twelve months); see also Cuoco v. U.S. Bureau of Prisons, 328 F.Supp.2d 8 463, 464-469 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice, finding “manipulation 9 of IFP system” regarding settlement checks and related disclosures to the court); Richmond v. 10 Housewright, 101 F.R.D. 758…