# Exceptional Child Center, Inc. v. Richard Armstrong

> Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · May 14, 2015 · 788 F.3d 991

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2800845

## Case

- **Full name:** EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC.; Inclusion, Inc.; Tomorrow’s Hope Satellite Services, Inc.; WDB, Inc.; Living Independently for Everyone, Inc., Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. Richard ARMSTRONG; Leslie Clement, Defendants-Appellants
- **Court:** Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- **Decided:** May 14, 2015
- **Citations:** 788 F.3d 991; 2015 WL 3540552
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion
- **Judges:** Tallman, Bea, Murphy
- **Nature of suit:** Civil
- **Cited by:** 1 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2800845

## Opinion text

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CENTER, INC.; No. 12-35382
INCLUSION, INC.; TOMORROW’S
HOPE SATELLITE SERVICES, INC.; D.C. No.
WDB, INC.; LIVING INDEPENDENTLY 1:09-cv-00634-
FOR EVERYONE, INC., BLW
Plaintiffs-Appellees,

v. ORDER

RICHARD ARMSTRONG; LESLIE
CLEMENT,
Defendants-Appellants.

On Remand From The United States Supreme Court

Filed May 14, 2015

Before: Richard C. Tallman and Carlos T. Bea, Circuit
Judges, and Stephen Joseph Murphy,* District Judge.

*
The Honorable Stephen Joseph Murphy III, United States District
Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.
2 EXCEPTIONAL CHILD CTR. V. ARMSTRONG

ORDER

The original decision entered by this court, reported at
567 F. App’x 496, was reversed by the Supreme Court of the
United States. The Court held that the Supremacy Clause
does not provide an implied private right of action and that
Medicaid providers do not otherwise have the ability to
proceed in equity for enforcement of § 30(A) of the Medicaid
Act. See Armstrong v. Exceptional Child Ctr., Inc., 135 S. Ct.
1378 (2015). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has now
specifically addressed the question our court had previously
addressed, and the opinion upon which we relied, Indep.
Living Ctr. of S. Cal. v. Shewry, 543 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir.
2008), is no longer valid and is overruled. See Miller v.
Gammie, 335 F.3d 889, 893 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc). In
accordance with the Supreme Court’s opinion, we vacate the
district court’s injunction, and remand with direction to the
district court to dismiss the Complaint for failure to establish
a claim over which we have subject matter jurisdiction under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1).

REVERSED and REMANDED.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/2800845. Public record. Not legal advice.