The Arc of California, et al v. Douglas, et al

Filing 58

ORDER signed by Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 10/3/12 ORDERING the Court declines to stay the scheduled depositions, and Defendant's Emergency Ex Parte Application 55 is also DENIED.(Matson, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

THE ARC OF CALIFORNIA;
UNITED CEREBRAL PALSY
ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO,

13

Plaintiffs,

14
15
16
17
18
19
20

No. 2:11-cv-02545-MCE-CKD

ORDER

v.
TOBY DOUBLAS, in his official
capacity as Director of the
California Department of
Health Care Services;
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HEALTH CARE SERVICE; TERRI
DELGADILLO, in her official
capacity as Director of the
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICES; and
DOES 1-100, inclusive,

21

Defendants.

22

----oo0oo----

23

By Order filed December 15, 2011, this Court stayed the

24

instant proceedings given an impending decision from the United

25

States Supreme Court.

26

///

27

///

28

///
1

1

Defendants argued the decision in that case would determine

2

whether Plaintiffs had standing to pursue this lawsuit, which

3

seeks to enjoin and prohibit the implementation of several

4

payment reductions to providers of services for persons with

5

developmental disabilities in California.

6

In addition to the expected Supreme Court decision,

7

Defendants further argued that the Centers for Medicare and

8

Medicaid (“CMS”) were expected to finalize new regulations,

9

literally within a matter of weeks, that could substantially

10

resolve many of the issues presented by this litigation.

11

On August 22, 2012, at the request of Plaintiffs, this Court

12

lifted the stay on grounds 1) that the Supreme Court’s

13

anticipated decision in Douglas v. Independent Living Center of

14

Southern California, 132 S. Ct. 1204 (2012), issued on

15

February 22, 2012 did not provide the expected guidance with

16

respect to this litigation; and 2) that new CMS regulations,

17

which had initially been expected in December of 2011, had still

18

not been promulgated. The Court’s order authorized Plaintiffs to

19

take up to three depositions of Defendants’ personnel, for

20

purposes of the previously requested preliminary injunctive

21

relief, within 45 days.

22

On August 27, 2012, Defendants filed a request for

23

reconsideration of the Court’s August 22, 2012 lifting the

24

previously imposed stay.

25

fact, approved the Home Community and Home Based Services

26

(“HCBS”) waiver program on March 26, 2012.

27

///

28

///

Defendants chiefly contend that CMS, in

2

1

That alleged waiver, however, occurred well before the stay was

2

lifted, and Defendants have already posited the argument that

3

such approval was tantamount to actual approval of the challenged

4

cuts.

5

that said waiver amounts to “changed circumstances” making

6

Douglas directly applicable to this matter in a way it was not

7

beforehand.

8

accordingly.

9

See ECF No. 40, 4:2-16.

Nevertheless, Defendants contend

Defendants urge the Court to reconsider their ruling

Plaintiffs, on the other hand, argue that despite approval

10

of the waiver program, Defendants have still not submitted a

11

State Plan amendment concerning the challenged cuts, and that,

12

accordingly, there has been no approval of any such amendment

13

that would bear directly on the applicability of Douglas.

14

argument was made previously and was noted in the Court’s

15

previous August 22, 2012 Order.

That

(ECF No. 48, 3-4).

16

A court should not revisit its own decisions unless

17

extraordinary circumstances show that its prior decision was

18

wrong.

19

800, 816, 108 S. Ct. 2166 (1988).

20

appropriate if the district court 1) is presented with newly

21

discovered evidence; 2) has committed clear error or issued an

22

initial decision that was manifestly unjust; or 3) is presented

23

with an intervening change in controlling law.

24

Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R. Co., 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th Cir.

25

2003); School Dist. No. 1J, Multnomah County v. ACandS, Inc.,

26

5 F.3d 1255, 1263 (9th Cir. 1993)(citations and quotations

27

omitted).

28

///

Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S.

3

Reconsideration may be

See Turner v.

1

Local Rule 230(j) similarly requires a party seeking

2

reconsideration to demonstrate “what new or different facts or

3

circumstances are claimed to exist which did not exist or were

4

not shown upon such prior motion, or what other grounds exist for

5

the motion,” and “why the facts or circumstances were not shown

6

at the time of the prior motion.”

7

“Motions for reconsideration serve a limited function: to

8

correct manifest errors of law or fact or to present newly

9

discovered evidence.”

Ayala v. KC Envtl. Health,

10

426 F. Supp. 2d 1070, 1098 (E.D. Cal. 2006) (emphasis in

11

original) (internal citations omitted).

12

with the court’s order, or belief that the court is wrong in its

13

decision, are accordingly not sufficient.

14

requests are addressed to the sound discretion of the district

15

court.

16

1063.

17

Mere dissatisfaction

Reconsideration

Turner v. Burlington N. Santa Fe R.R., supra, 338 F.3d at

Here Defendants have failed to demonstrate that this matter

18

comes within the very limited scenarios under which

19

reconsideration may be indicated.

20

challenged cuts has still not occurred, and accordingly the

21

present application is little more than a rehash of the same

22

arguments the Court has already addressed.

23

indicated above, Defendants already argued in opposition to

24

Plaintiffs’ original request to lift the stay the very same

25

argument that underscores their renewed request that the Court

26

revisit the issue by way of reconsideration.

27

///

28

///
4

State Plan amendment of the

Moreover, as

1

Reconsideration is not appropriate under the circumstances, and

2

Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (ECF No. 49) is DENIED.1

3

In addition to moving for reconsideration, Defendants also,

4

on September 27, 2012, filed an “Emergency” Ex Parte Application

5

for yet another stay, this time with respect to any discovery

6

occurring before the Court’s ruling on Defendants’ Renewed Motion

7

to Dismiss, which currently is set to be heard on November 1,

8

2012.

9

August 22, 2012 Order, limited discovery at the time it lifted

As already indicated above, the Court authorized, in its

10

the previously imposed stay.

11

said court-authorized discovery should be held in abeyance

12

pending the motion to dismiss.

13

Defendants nonetheless contend that

The discovery at issue was ordered by the Court on

14

August 22, 2012, and is limited in scope, having been requested

15

by Plaintiffs in connection with their potential renewal of a

16

motion for preliminary injunction.

17

take place within 45 days of the Court’s order, which means that

18

the depositions now scheduled for October 3, 4 and 5 were

19

scheduled at the very end of that period.

20

did not take any action to halt the scheduled discovery for well

21

over a month and less than a week before the depositions were

22

scheduled to commence.

23

///

The discovery was ordered to

Defendants nonetheless

24
1

25
26
27
28

While the Court notes that Plaintiffs also argue that
certain of the rate reduction provisions have sunset provisions,
that argument does not render the matter moot since additional
payment reductions, albeit at different percentages, has already
been enacted according to Defendants, and some of the challenged
provisions are not subject to sunset in any event. See Opp.,
pp. 5-6. Moreover, certain of the challenged cuts have no sunset
provisions whatsoever.
5

1

In addition, according to Plaintiffs’ September 28, 2012

2

opposition to the “emergency” ex parte application, substantial

3

agreement has already been reached as to the parameters of the

4

scheduled depositions.

5

reply challenging those assertions.

6

Significantly, Plaintiffs have filed no

Under these circumstances the Court declines to stay the

7

scheduled depositions, and Defendant’s Emergency Ex Parte

8

Application (ECF No. 55) is also DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 3, 2012

11
12
13

_____________________________
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
6