Brantley et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al

Filing 302

ORDER, Set/Reset Deadlines as to 225 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction. Plaintiffs' supplemental brief due by 10/14/2011. Defendants' supplemental brief due by 10/21/2011. Motion Hearing set for 11/1/2011 01:00 PM before Hon. Saundra Brown Armstrong.. Signed by Judge Armstrong on 7/22/11. (sbalc2, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 7/22/2011)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4

OAKLAND DIVISION

5

ESTHER DARLING; RONALD BELL by

Case No: C 09-03798 SBA

6 His guardian ad litem Rozene Dilworth;

GILDA GARCIA; WENDY HELFRICH by

ORDER CONTINUING HEARING

7 her guardian ad litem Dennis Arnett; JESSIE

JONES; RAIF NASYROV by his guardian
8 ad litem Sofiya Nasyrova; ALLIE JO

WOODARD, by her guardian ad litem Linda
9 Gaspard-Berry; individually and on behalf of

all others similarly situated,
10

Plaintiffs,
11

vs.
12

TOBY DOUGLAS, Director of the
13 Department of Health Care Services, State of

California, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
14 CARE SERVICES,

Defendants.

15
16
17

The parties are before the Court on Defendants’ request to continue the hearing on

18

Plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction, which presently is scheduled for July 26,

19

2011. At the direction of the Court, the parties have submitted letter briefs which set forth

20

their respective positions on whether the Court should continue the hearing date. Dkt. 299,

21

301.

22

The July 26 hearing date is based on the fact that the State of California passed

23

Assembly Bill (“AB”) 97, which will entirely eliminate Adult Day Health Care (“ADHC”)

24

as an optional Medi-Cal benefit, effective September 1, 2011. While acknowledging that

25

the State has a right to eliminate such services, Plaintiffs contend that it cannot legally do

26

so without first ensuring that an adequate transition plan is in place. As such, Plaintiffs

27

have filed a motion for preliminary injunction to enjoin the elimination of ADHC under AB

28

97 “until Defendants demonstrate that recipients will receive adequate, appropriate and

1

uninterrupted replacement services necessary to prevent their institutionalization.” Dkt.

2

225.

3

On July 22, 2011, Defendants notified the Court that they have obtained approval

4

from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid to maintain ADHC as a benefit until at least

5

December 1, 2011. Dkt. 299. Based on that delay, Defendants posit that the adjudication

6

of Plaintiffs’ motion would be premature, since the circumstances underlying said motion

7

are likely to change in view of this delay. In particular, Defendants represent that the time

8

extension will “allow the Department to further develop the transition program to ensure

9

that there is a seamless transition of ADHC beneficiaries to alternative services.” Dkt. 299

10

at 2. Plaintiffs oppose continuing the hearing date, claiming that Defendants have made no

11

showing that their allegedly inadequate transition plan will improve prior to December 1,

12

2011. Dkt. 301.

13

The Court is persuaded that the change in circumstances presents good cause for

14

continuing the July 26 motion hearing date. Since Plaintiffs’ motion is based on the

15

assumption that an adequate transition plan will not be in place by termination date of the

16

ADHC benefit, it would be premature for the Court to proceed with Plaintiffs’ motion now

17

that the termination date has been delayed until December 1, 2011. Plaintiffs’ assertion that

18

Defendants will do nothing to improve their transition plan is speculative. Moreover, even

19

if Defendants fail to change their transition plan, Plaintiffs will be not be prejudiced by the

20

continuance, since their motion for preliminary injunction will be heard prior to December

21

1, 2011.1 Accordingly,

22
23
24
25
1

Plaintiffs have requested that, in the event the Court continues the motion, the
Court authorize the parties to engage in limited discovery so that they will have current
information concerning Defendants’ transition efforts. Plaintiffs are granted leave to
27 conduct such limited discovery. Nonetheless, the Court encourages the parties to work
cooperatively to provide relevant information to one another without resort to formal
28 discovery, to the extent possible.
26

-2-

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

2

1.

Defendants’ request to continue the hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion for

3

preliminary injunction is GRANTED. The hearing on Plaintiffs’ motion is CONTINUED

4

from July 26, 2011, to November 1, 2011 at 1:00 p.m.

5

2.

By no later than October 14, 2011, Plaintiffs shall file a supplemental brief in

6

support of their motion for preliminary injunction to incorporate factual developments

7

regarding the Defendants’ transition plan since the filing of the motion. Defendants shall

8

file a responsive brief by October 21, 2011. Both briefs shall be limited to eight (8) pages.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 22, 2011

_______________________________
SAUNDRA BROWN ARMSTRONG
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-3-