Ball v. Kasich
| Citation | 520 F.Supp.3d 979 |
| Decision Date | 17 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action 2:16-cv-282 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Ohio |
| Parties | Phyllis BALL, et al., Plaintiffs, v. John KASICH, et al., Defendants. |
Julie M. Pfeiffer, Bridget C. Coontz, Caitlyn Nestleroth Johnson, Tiffany L. Carwile, Zachery Paul Keller, Office of the Ohio Attorney General, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Governor John Kasich.
Larry Holliday James, Robert Charles Buchbinder, Vincent James Lodico, Christopher Robert Green, Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Director John Martin.
Julie E. Brigner, Ohio Attorney General's Office Health & Human Services Section, Larry Holliday James, Frank David Tice, V, Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Director Kevin Miller.
Julie E. Brigner, Justin T. Radic, Theresa R. Dirisamer, Ohio Attorney General's Office, Larry Holliday James, Frank David Tice, V, Crabbe, Brown & James, LLP, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Barbara Sears.
Larry Holliday James, Crabbe Brown & James, Columbus, OH, for Defendant Norman S. Ray.
This matter is before the Court on three Motions to Dismiss filed by the Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities (ECF No. 353), the State of Ohio (ECF No. 354), and the Governor of Ohio (ECF No. 355). Those motions are ripe for review. (ECF Nos. 363, 372, 383, 384.) Also, before the Court is the unopposed Motion for Leave to File as Amicus Curiae filed by VOR, Inc. (ECF Nos. 373.) For the reasons that follow, the Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART (ECF Nos. 353, 354, 355), and the Motion for Leave to File is GRANTED (ECF No. 373).
This case involves two groups of individuals with developmental disabilities who are not satisfied with Ohio's administration of its developmental-disability system. One group, Plaintiffs and Disability Rights Ohio, filed this case alleging that Ohio's system violates federal law because it is allegedly too reliant on Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") at the expense of integration into the community for disability services.
The other group, who intervened as representatives of individuals who prefer institutional care in ICFs ("Guardians"), allege that Ohio's system violates the same federal law because it is fails to inform people of the ICF choice, leaving them only the option of community based care through waivers or wait lists for those waivers. Defendants frame the general issue before this Court as follows:
Defendants agree that [the] Guardians should have a voice in this case. Guardians hold reasonable and firmly-held beliefs that Intermediate Care Facilities ("ICFs") are the best places for their loved ones.... But that does not mean Guardians have their own federal claims against State Defendants.
(Ohio Mot. to Dismiss at 1, ECF No. 354.) Defendants have all, therefore, moved for dismissal of the Guardians’ claims.
On March 31, 2016, Disability Rights Ohio filed this case on behalf of six individually named Plaintiffs ("Individual Plaintiffs") and the Ability Center of Greater Toledo (together "Plaintiffs") seeking declarative and injunctive relief against and the Directors of the Ohio Department of Developmental Disabilities, the Ohio Department of Medicaid, and Opportunities for Ohioans with Disabilities (together "State of Ohio") and the Governor of Ohio (together "Defendants"). Plaintiffs alleged that Ohio's administration, management, and funding of its service system for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities such as themselves put them at serious risk of segregation and institutionalization in violation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq. and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794.2 as interpreted by the Supreme Court's decision in Olmstead v. L.C., 527 U.S. 581, 119 S.Ct. 2176, 144 L.Ed.2d 540 (1999). Plaintiffs also moved under Title XIX of the Social Security Act ("Medicaid Act"), 42 U.S.C. 1396, et seq. ,
Defendants filed motions for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ claims for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF Nos. 16, 27, 28.) The Court granted in part and denied in part those motions. (ECF No. 90.)
The Ohio County Boards Serving People with Developmental Disabilities ("County Boards") moved to intervene, which was opposed by Plaintiffs. (ECF Nos. 68, 73.) After full briefing (ECF No. 79), this Court permitted the County Boards to intervene (ECF No. 261), adding them to the existing Defendants.
The Guardians, representing individuals who prefer institutional care in ICFs also moved to intervene. (Mot. Intervene 5, ECF No. 107; Individual Guardian Docs., ECF Nos. 123, 125–29, 138, 139, 141–44, 146–48, 152–53, 155, 160, 161, 166–70, 172–77, 182–86, 192–220, 223–32, 234–41, 243–45, 247–49, 251–60). Defendants supported the Guardians’ request to intervene, but only for the purpose of opposing Plaintiffs’ request for class certification. (ECF No. 130.) Plaintiffs opposed intervention. (ECF No. 131.) The Court granted intervention to the Guardians in July 2017. (Opinion and Order, ECF No. 261.)
VOR, Inc. moved to intervene to support the Guardians’ opposition to class certification, (ECF No. 164), which this Court granted (ECF No. 261) after full briefing (ECF Nos. 222, 246).
The Individual Plaintiffs sought to represent a class of similarly situated individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, moving for class certification under Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (ECF No. 42, 53, 276.) Defendants opposed class certification (ECF Nos. 273, 279, 291), as did the County Boards (ECF Nos. 275, 293), VOR (ECF No. 294), and the Guardians (ECF No. 296). The Court granted in part Plaintiffs’ Motion to Certify Class, certifying a narrower class than requested. (Opinion and Order at 1–2, ECF No. 309; Opinion and Order, ECF No. 303.)
The Guardians filed a Third-Party Complaint with Crossclaims against all Defendants (the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards). (ECF No. 326.) The Guardians allege that Ohio has systematically denied ICF services, by failing, in their view, to assure that individuals who qualify for ICF services are informed of that qualification so that they may be provided that ICF service if they so choose. Guardians aver that the County Boards routinely fail to provide information about ICFs to eligible individuals so that the individuals know they have a choice to reside in an ICF, and instead only provide information related to the individual's qualification for waiver services, i.e. , community based options or wait lists for community based options.
The State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards, all moved for dismissal of the Guardians’ crossclaims. (ECF No. 353, 354, 355.) VOR has moved for leave to file as amicus curiae for the purpose of opposing Defendants’ requests for dismissal, which the Court grants herein. (ECF Nos. 373.) The Guardians and VOR opposed the motions to dismiss (ECF No. 372, 373-1), and Defendants filed replies (ECF Nos. 383, 384.) At the request of the parties, the Court stayed decision on the motions to dismiss so that all parties could engage in settlement negotiations.
Following extensive settlement negotiations, all parties entered into a settlement as a complete and final resolution of all matters. The Court granted the unopposed request of the Plaintiff Class, Defendants, and the County Boards for Preliminary Approval of the Class Action Settlement Agreement (ECF Nos. 396, 407, 408) on October 18, 2019 (ECF No. 409). The following month, the Guardians withdrew from their agreement to settle.
On December 17, 2019, the Court held a Fairness Hearing on the Proposed Final Settlement Agreement. At that Hearing, there were no objections by any class members. The Guardians had numerous objectors present and each was permitted to speak, giving his or her reasons for objecting to the Settlement Agreement.
Following the Fairness Hearing, the Court suggested modifications to the Settlement Agreement to alleviate the concerns of those whose interests are aligned with the Guardians and offered all parties the opportunity to respond to the proposed modifications, which they all did. After review of the briefing, the Court approved the Settlement Agreement with the proposed modifications. (Final Approval Order, ECF No. 473.)
Plaintiffs and Defendants moved for certification of the Final Approval Order under Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (ECF No. 478), which provides that a district Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). The Guardians opposed the request. (ECF No. 481.) The Court granted the request for Rule 54 certification and entered judgment on the claims brought by Plaintiffs. (ECF No. 482.)
At the parties’ request, the Court vacated the stay on the motions to dismiss of the State of Ohio, the Governor of Ohio, and the County Boards. The Court also permitted the Guardians to file a surreply. (ECF No. 476.) The motions are now ripe for review.
In evaluating a complaint to determine whether it states a claim upon which relief can be granted under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a court must construe it in favor of the plaintiff, accept the factual allegations contained in the pleading as true, and determine whether the factual allegations present any plausible claim. Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). See also Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (). "A claim...
To continue reading
Request your trial