IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS AUSTIN DIVISION TEXAS M EDICAL PROVIDERS PERFORMING ABORTION SERVICES, et al., Plaintiffs, - v s - C a s e N o . A - 1 1 - C A - 4 8 6 - S S DAVID LAKEY, M.D., et al., Defendants. ________ _______ ________ ________ _______ ____ O R D E R

BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Co urt reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and specifically Plaintiffs’ Motions to Certify Classes [#10, 42], Defendants’ responses [#20, 46, 47] thereto, and Plaintiffs’ replies [#23, 58]; Plaintiffs’ Amended Motion for Preliminary Injunction [#18], Defendants’ response [#29] thereto, and the parties’ supplemental memoranda [#39, 41, 52]; Defendant David Escamilla’s Motions to Dismiss [#22, 49], Plaintiffs’ responses [#32, 59] thereto, and Escamilla’s reply [#62]; and Defendants’ Motions to Strike [#26, 27, 28], and Plaintiffs’ responses [#36, 37, 38] thereto. Having reviewed the documents, the relevant law, and the file as a whole, the Court now en ters the following opinion and orders. As an initial matter, the Court notes some of the motions listed as pending are now moot. Specifically, Plaintiffs’ filing of an amended complaint on July 21, 2011, technically mooted Defendant Escamilla’s original motion to dismiss [#22], a fact he appears to have acknowledged with the filing of his second moti on. Additionally, Defendants’ Motion to Continue the Preliminary Injunction Hearing [#25] is still listed as pending but, as that hearing was held as scheduled on July