Brantley et al v. Maxwell-Jolly et al

Filing 444

STIPULATED JUDGMENT. Signed by Judge ARMSTRONG on 1/24/12. (lrc, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/25/2012)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THENORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 ESTHER DARLING; RONALD BELL by his guardian ad litem Rozene Dilworth; GILDA GARCIA; WENDY HELFRICH by her guardian ad litem Dennis Arnett; JESSIE JONES; RAIF NASYROV by his guardian ad litem Sofiya Nasyrova; ALLIE JO WOODARD, by her guardian ad litem Linda Gaspard-Berry; individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, 14 15 16 17 18 19 Plaintiffs, v. TOBY DOUGLAS, Director of the Department of Health Care Services, State of California, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH CARE SERVICES, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: C-09-03798 SBA CLASS ACTION STIPULATED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT Hearing Date: Time: Judge: Address: Courtroom: January 24, 2012 1:00 P.M. Hon. Saundra Armstrong 1301 Clay Street Oakland, CA 94102 1, 4th Floor 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 i DARLING, ET AL.V. DOUGLAS, ET AL., C09-03798 SBA; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 Plaintiffs Esther Darling, Ronald Bell by his Guardian ad Litem, Rozene Dilworth, Gilda 2 Garcia,Wendy Helfrich by her Guardian ad Litem, Dennis Arnett, Jessie Jones, Raif Nasyrov by his 3 Guardian ad Litem, Sofiya Nasyrova, and Allie Jo Woodard by her Guardian ad Litem, Linda 4 Gaspard-Berry, (“Plaintiffs”), and Defendants Toby Douglas and the Department of Health Care 5 Services (DHCS), (“Defendants”) have entered into a Settlement Agreement for resolution of this 6 class action matter. Plaintiffs and Defendants (the Parties) have submitted the proposed Settlement 7 Agreement to the Court for final approval pursuant to, and in compliance with Federal Rules of Civil 8 Procedure, Rule 23, subdivision (e). 9 The Court found that the Parties gave notice of the proposed Settlement Agreement to Class 10 Members in a reasonable manner. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e)(1). On January 24, 2012, this Court 11 conducted a Fairness Hearing pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)(2), affording the 12 parties and Class Members the opportunity to be heard in support of and in opposition to the 13 proposed settlement agreement. After reviewing and considering the joint papers of the Parties filed 14 in support of the Settlement Agreement, the Settlement Agreement preliminarily approved by this 15 Court on December 14, 2011 (ECF No. 415), objections by Class Members and the Parties’ 16 Responses thereof, evidence, argument, comments and objections submitted, the Court has made a 17 finding that the Settlement Agreement is fair, reasonable, and adequate to bind Class Members; has 18 approved the Settlement; and has certified a Settlement Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 19 Procedure 23(a) and (b)(2), appointed named Plaintiffs as Class Representatives, and appointed 20 Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel. 21 22 23 The Court having fully considered the matter and good cause appearing, hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES AND DECREES as follows: 1. The Court has jurisdiction over the claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against 24 Defendants pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1343 and 1367. Venue is proper in the Northern District 25 of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b). 26 27 28 2. This case is certified as a class action for purposes of Settlement. The Settlement Class is defined as: “All Medi-Cal beneficiaries in the State of California for whom Adult Day 1 DARLING, ET AL. V. DOUGLAS, ET AL., C09-03798 SBA; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 1 Health Care benefits will be eliminated under the provisions of AB 97 including those who met or 2 will meet the current eligibility and medical necessity criteria for ADHC at any point prior to the 3 Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement; or who will meet the eligibility and medical necessity 4 criteria for CBAS at any point prior to Termination of the Settlement Agreement.” 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 3. Judgment is entered pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement incorporated herein, as though fully set forth, and attached as Exhibit A to this Stipulated Judgment. 4. The Court orders the parties to the Settlement Agreement to perform all of their obligations thereunder. 5. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this lawsuit until 30 months after the Effective Date of the Settlement Agreement. 6. The Court finds that no just reason exists for delay in entering this Stipulated 12 Judgment pursuant to the Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, the Clerk is hereby directed to 13 immediately enter this Stipulated Judgment. 14 15 7. This Stipulated Judgment is binding against Defendants, their successors in office, and their respective officers, agents and employees, and all others acting in concert with them. 16 17 18 Dated: 1/24/12 Honorable Saundra Brown Armstrong United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DARLING, ET AL. V. DOUGLAS, ET AL., C09-03798 SBA; [PROPOSED] STIPULATED JUDGMENT PURSUANT TO CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?