community advocacy we are not asserting any more organizational standing simply association all standing under hunt the secondary issue assuming standing exists is whether the district court should in fact have entered standing really begins and ends in terms of what the district court did with the first factor of the hunt's test because the district court misapplied that factor the right makes a factual finding incidental to the issue of standing is that reviewed in all or is and that reviewed for clear that's clear on your honor i don't think there are any factual findings that are specific to the issue of standing there were certainly it were factual findings below and there a number of those things we simply haven't brought up because of the standard of review where there are a lot of questions about whether this association had more than three numbers are you satisfied with us proceeding on the basis of just looking at the three who apparently it appears as if there's no dispute that those three named plaintiffs pay dues that's correct your honor are we limiting are these purposes yes and you know we will have additional things to say perhaps in the district court but right now we're up here on those three because under a barrier against line and under sprint court case law it just takes one and the district court never held it's not the case that these three don't have standing and i think it really is that simple with respect to the first factor of the month test there is no holding that the individuals don't have standing there's no disagreement that their members that's the first factor the and the second and third factors are easy isis i submit the second factor is is this germane to what the association does well the association exists in this testimony but it's sort of obvious on its face as well this is so serious and exists to advocate for developmentally disabled people in washington a county that's what this case is about developmentally disabled people in washington accounting and the third factor redress of redress ability doesn't require individual individual participation by the members the answer is it does not because of the nature of the relief that is being sought the nature of the relief is prospect of injunctive relief saying the procedures that the defendants undertook with the budget cuts were inappropriate and specifically because we're now in a way sort of interposing factors one and factor three so when we look at the really thing side but we apply it to factor number one if we assume that they're members because that's what judge  and then we go on to whether or not they have standing to assert the relief that you're seeking and if it at least looks on the surface so that's what we'd like you to address that the three named members received all of the process that they were entitled to now they might have been a mistake at the beginning they the people might have screwed up but eventually they got the process so how do we what  if we if we conclude that they received all the relief that you're seeking how do they then have standing to continue this case the posture that it's there are a number of strands to that question and if i may i'd like to unpack it a little bit because the there that is really i take your point that is really what this appeal is about and the first part of it is and i think there's no dispute about this standing is measured as of the filing of the complaint the supreme court held that in i believe friends of the earth and against laidlaw and this court held that in cleveland and double a c p against that we're looking at a specific point in time which is march fifteenth two thousand and sixteen as of that date it differs a little bit among the three individual plaintiffs arguably i don't think it's the that standing is established at the complaint and then the question becomes throughout the proceedings does the claim become moot those are not exactly interchangeable terms but i would i would use the once the association has standing it is in titles to go out and advocate as exactly as happened in in cleveland double a c p against parma where the standing was established but by the time it got to this court the original person who would who had been seeking employment as a parma police officer was no longer interested in the case didn't matter then doubly city could still proceed in other words the move the subsequent move first of all recently i believe that any issue as to class and mutinous was distinct from the standing issue there and the that's that's my recollection of the did this one person that you and judge branch believe have standing did they then get the relief that you're seeking for the entire membership between the time you filed the case and the time and now no they not so they got some of it they didn't get all of it and so what didn't they get they did not get a proper notice that said we are about to take negative advance action against you and if you  al because this is a negative advance action and this goes all the way back to goldberg against kelly if you appeal you are entitled to continuation of benefits pending the appeal and that never happened still hasn't happened and under that under the circumstances of this case and i invite the court to look at it didn't indeed to our brief which is some subsequent events in the we used in our case it real the benefits pending point really matters here because it puts the burden of de lay on the agency as opposed to on the plaintiff and that's exactly what goldberg kelley goldberg against kelly said it's supposed to do the agen says that they recognize that the notice was deficient and they went out and met with every single one of the hundred sixty nine or whatever it is that your potential membership and  they were entitled to nobody got a notice that said we are about to cut your benefits and and if you are if you didn't get a notice and then you go out and you cure that who are claiming the subsequent actions of the agency didn't cure the defects correct or honor and the reason is the reason ties back to among other things but it ties back to the nature of the notice because the notice did not say this is a cut they everyone appears to agree with them i know this was inadequate and now we're talking about the gene that's correct and the jew notice was it's called an adequate notice and i've actually spent some time trying to figure out the etiology of the use of that word in the dim recesses of goldberg and kelly lore but what happened was that was a notice that they gave to people and it's in the record after we after they renegotiate of the i p o s saying if you don't like your i p o s here is your appeal rights it's not an advance notice of negative determination there's no benefits pending it's just you can appeal if you don't like your i p o s they did there is nothing in the record to say that they went and told people we are cutting your benefits you have a right to benefits pending while if you appeal to you have a rights to right to benefits pending while that's determined and as so we know the three n the did did why is your appeal then the lack of full really think you're saying that he didn't get from the is it is not clear that he had the ability that he had he had the procedural ability to do that and the the issue here is that the administrative proceeding is framed by the notice that is given to the bottom line is you want to do over here for plan years if that's the right term that were several plans ago even though the agency only says they met with everybody that was entitled the proper notice and as far as they know everybody's satisfied that is that if i distill this down correctly not entirely your honor although although i am there i think yes in parts of the what you think about what the why that isn't accurate if i got part of it right but part of it wrong then you've got five minutes when you come back and but will find out exactly from them why this why they claim of ventura lee your folks got everything they were telling her no matter before you stop i have a question implemented or do they remain on appeal by the by you're done by the defendant they remain on appeal by the defendants there is a factual issue unresolved in the district court as to whether they have been fully implemented we have affidavit  evidence in the record that says they have not been fully implemented one of the orders as i understand it specifically ordered that there be a return to the premeditated two thousand and fifteen calculation methodology the ale j that says you guys didn't do this yes you are the direct action agency that is going to deal directly with the developmentally disabled and that is correct thank you i think first of all the from what i heard based on the questioning previously what i i want to say first i submit that all of the claims of the individual plaintiffs which are not really before the court are moot they all have gotten as a matter of fact as of now each of the individual plaintiffs and everyone else who receives community living support and watch not county is receiving more in benefits then they were in  and fifteen we didn't get that there was a mistake in april of twenty fifteen one question is are they receiving more benefits and they were in april of fifteen because you had a six percent increase or because you were turned to the calculation method that was prima they both but we didn't we do you have a return so yup you know i want to clarify that thank you the individual plaintiffs the order from the administrative law judge is that they their benefits be restored and the benefits were restored no one believe it's why sooners specifically says you shall return to the premier two thousand and fifteen calculation methodology so my question to you is have you done that we i believe that the order that you're referring to is one that we have appealed there's still an appeal pending so you have not implemented the we have not gone back to the flawed methodology thank you we have not gone back to that and that's really not complied with the order we have appealed the order so if the order the order then there are there are several orders involved if there was a specific order most of the orders did not say we turn to the calculation method because that calculation met that was flawed that calculation method is really what's at the the basis of the of the complaint from these appellants they want to have the base  benefits which they have received are long there was never a reduction in the base benefits for any understand so so based on the testimony of your witnesses there's a dispute of material that as to whether the calculation method is inappropriate under your standards because at least one has found it the appropriate methodology for determining benefits i  don't believe that on the record in the district court there's there's no testimony there's they just say that this is a flawed method and we had to use that we are part of a regional authority and the regional authority sets the method by which benefits are given out this is not all our money must rogel is that the act itself sits the method by which benefits are to be implemented and i understand we have a whole series of contractual arrangements from the state through c m h through w c c and marriage so that there are contractual relationships but the entire case is governed by the act and the act says for for these waiver individuals who are waived as out of institutionalization both because that saves money and because it is an improved living situation for them all those individuals have to have a needs based budget created and then that can't be  that is that is the basis of how you calculate moneys go to each of the individual clients who are you are exactly right and what perhaps i'm not explaining correctly the budget is developed through th yes there's a person pay person center process the individual and their guardian and the support coordinator they sit down and they determine what the needs are that's where the needs are determined in the i p o s and so there is whose annual budget previously was twenty nine thousand dollars before the budgeting challenge and after your budgeting change his budget becoming twenty six thousand dollars if you look at the end let's focus on the isn't that a bet an accurate description of his budget correct well if i can if i can just for a minute explain you're correct in one manner but if you look at the two budgets that are attached one is record industry one fourteen and one is record entry one fifteen his rate was thirteen dollars an eighty eight cents for thirty two hours of service in both budgets that is what is set in the i p o s the number of hours that he needs to accomplish what is in s that's where all that is worked out so i think we're it's hard not to get down in the weeds in this and i understand that but what we're struggling with is whether the actual order that relates to the three nine direct presented to us has been implemented or whether there is ongoing home because those are the items that were light to whether a preliminary injunction is appropriately issued and my understanding from what you said is that they have not been implemented because they're on appeal but what i'm saying is that there's been no harm that they all that plaintiffs have had they been subsequently succeeded by two thousand and sixteen and two thousand and seventeen i p o s and yes we're talking about an i p s period that's that's got a rant about what the plaintiffs say is that one or more of these three were entitled to something in two thousand and fifteen they didn't get what you're saying is well it's all procedural problems we gave him bad notice we went back we gave him a new notice and everything is fine so all we're trying to figure out is is there still alive controversy as to whether any of these three are seeking more money for whatever reason than they got for two thousand and fifty and my in my answer to this there is is there is all three of them had their budgets re stored to pre twenty fifteen levels that i miss not that i did but did you pay the full amount of the yes yes you unjudged ranch are not seemingly able to get on the same page here because she has you a question and you answer another question ok i'm sorry so you want to go back and say well they had their base budget restored but my understanding is they're claiming that they were entitled to stuff in addition to the base budget that shouldn't have been included in the base budget is all right she said right but they're telling me you have it right with their claim yes yes yes yes now did they did you then pay them all of those additional things that they were entitled to that they're claiming they were intended to whether you think they were entitled to him or not the answer to that is yes ok and where do we find that in the record he keeps direct addressing  directing us to an attachment or appendix d to a complaint which he says explains all as the plaintiff's counsel admitted on the record that all three of the name plaintiffs have been fully restored that's in the record where do i find it you don't have to if you don't have it right at hand your time is up so you can think about it and pass another thank you and end up a failure and and when you come back to answer i want you to help me understand how if they've been completely restored of record numbers that would indicate that there's a three thousand dollars decline in what their payments were made to them so i want to be sure that we're is different ok so what changes with each individual over the course of time and that's why these are reviewed yearly and sometimes even more often than every year and it can be initiated by the recipient or could be  only not a difference in how it's calculated and isn't that one the the grothman of the is to whether this the budget is calculated based on the thirteen eighty eight and then if you want something more you have to lose some of the of the things that you have negotiated for poor that constitute thirteen or pay them out of your own pocket no no it's  understanding that if you are it's all based on medical necessity and so if you are entitled to based upon the meeting that's that occurs with the person standard process when the i p o s are re evaluated if there are at their or track protection costs or therapies that are needed then there is the ability to increase that budget to enhance that so that they get everything that they need and that was that's the point that my sister counsel is trying to make is that they have been restored to the where do we look to find that they that they got everything they were claiming i'm not asking you to agree that their claim is valid we're just trying to figure out are there outstanding requests that have not been met why would they not have standing at least as to the one person to pursue the claim as to whether they were medically necessary seems to me you just gave away your case on your claim on standing you know what i'm saying is  that i think for me i think we're missing we're mixing up apples and oranges here they there are things that there are entitle to based upon their ip i p o ass ok when they sit down with their with the with that recipient with their caregivers with the guardians and they come to an assessment of what is needed and i think it was one hundred forty nine of the recipients came to an agreement based upon the amount that was budgeted twenty of them appealed and the three plaintiffs of the three individual plaintiffs in this case were those who did appeal were restored to preach two thousand and fifteen levels and in fact are even budgeted a higher level at this point now the third element of standing which is whether it requires the participation of the individual plaintiffs in the case i think is very important here and that's because we can't just make a blanket pronouncement in this case like the court did in the barry case because here the i p o s are a fluid document they change every year they go up and down depending on needs the beer is still a consistent thread throughout everyone who has a map e o s it's hal who base level is calculated and that's the grabbing one of the fighting isn't it how do you calculate that well and what judge turno found was that while they're entitled to adequate services and medically necessary services they're not entitled to a certain budget calculation and so the question is since you ha the reason the reason is because you have what happened here is that they they have the base calculation right and there was the i think we can kind of cut through the hat because the question becomes we can't solve the substantive issue that has not been taken up by the district court that's not been resolved yet that's still out there so the question becomes you have an a l j who say this what you are asking for mr disabled individual is correct they should calculate the they should calculate the budget by this method ordering them to do it now the question becomes if they don't and i think the answer is no we've appealed it but they haven't been harmed that's the plane and that is a subject evaluation how do we know they haven't been harmed if they were seeking twenty nine thousand and they got twenty six because the fluctuation doesn't depend and the budget the fluctuation depends on the needs and the services and the amount of hours and whether there is natural support there's a lot of other elements that are involved in determining that i'm only they were contending their medical needs justified the twenty nine at least in the one person and you've been you paid twenty six right that's right so why isn't that still alive dispute we might come down to we're fighting about three thousand dollars here but as far as that's important to the individual so why isn't that still alive dispute in the well there's two reasons one is because when look at standing and there has to be an actual case or controversy no matter who is attempting to assert standing and in this case they have it's a procedural due process and what they're claiming is that they didn't receive the process that was due to them klein underlined that's true and while they may disagree with the result they still did receive the process that was due so there is no case or controversy then what are you a paling we're not appealing well what  your counsel appealing if everything's been done oh you mean in terms of wise or with the yet in terms of not getting the calculation the order right well they're appealing  him a few seconds other any other questions that i could attempt to answer that was what you want to tell us ok just really quickly with respect to standing we we would suggest that there is no standing to the individual plaintiffs they've all been entitled to an appeal they've given they've received notice they've either through these plaintiffs actually went through the appeal process and received relief and that was really what they're entitled to that's really what they're fighting about there no it's a procedural to pass it's going to be safe to say that if this if this case is viewed as limited to due process they all got eventually the process they went oh absolutely as to the claim for substantive force for  substantive relief that is a more difficult question that we're struggling that's a question of entitlement and there and judge charnel held that there there is no entitlement to a certain calculation you're entitled to medically necessary funding ok and they have a process that addresses that in the through the administrative proceedings act so what does seem sort of odd that you have p this administrative procedures act case they got they they got a hearing there's an order that orders on appeal yet somehow we're being asked to jump in in the middle but nobody seems to be discussing that it's almost an abstention case that's what i thought i kind of came into this late to after briefing to argue the matter and it to me it struck me as an abstention case because there are state proceedings that are so ongoing and you know there are so many reasons why the court should not have granted like a standing and it was correct judge towner was correct in doing so but in addition there are these ongoing proceedings that would suggest that the district court should abstain from getting involved at this point because it was asked him to very narrow will answer where do we where do we look in the record to cooperate your statement that these people got everything they were asking for yes sir that's a transcript from the hearing it's a record entry forty eight i page nine thirty two where in the attorney for the appellants here stated on the record that their benefits had been fully restored they weren't calculate the same way but the been if this were fully restore your earlier answer well you know the the and in terms of the importance of the notice on how is there a denial of a substantive right if at the end of the day they they did in fact get everything that you claim they were entitled but they didn't and and so how do you respond to what she says you know you are somebody said in the court below your honor that that point in the record i think is framed not in terms of everything that they see if i get this right the claim there it and the claim now is that they are entitled to the benefits that they have calculated if the number the difference is the point i think was that they were that was cool and the individuals were at that point getting the the twenty nine versus twenty six or the numerical equivalent of what they weren't getting and what matters and what still matters it's very much is the right to have things calculated correctly so that as rates go up judge strategy you pointed out that there were there were increases in rates but there was not a change in the methodology and i don't think there's any dispute that they are not doing the proper add on methodology i don't think there's any dispute about that but what you're doing is you're changing your focus and it may be a good idea from whether there was three thousand dollars left on the table back in two thousand and fifteen to the question of prospective  relief as to how to keep doing this in the future so i is that what you want or do you want both well of course i want both but the but what i what i want to do is i want to focus on we just were and i want to focus on benefit spending and i want to focus on hamby against neil this court's decision and begin in hamby against neal this court held it is extremely important to get the notice right when you're dealing with these denial of benefits situations because the notice frames the frames the administrative appeal and it will it frames the benefits that are available that in doing that opinion that's correct at it some suggestion that any of these three didn't understand what benefits they were and eligible to be seeking because of the inadequacies in the first notice that they got yes subsequent hearings then cure the at least the procedural due process deficiency in the first notice that's what i don't understand the procedural due process deficiency under goldberg includes the right to benefits spending and the benefits that they have the right to pending that they have the right to wear the calculation method that as rates would go up for example you could still air transportation it is clear in the record from the plan or an injunction hearing that people were not able to budget for all of the things that they want that they wanted to another thing that that sort of bothered me in trying to figure this out there was a long period of time when transportation to use that as your example was included in the base rate right up to two thousand and twelve up to two thousand and twelve that's correct then after that the then director said we're going to add that on top of the base rate and then some time after that somebody came along and said no that was a mistake we're going to take it back away what just seems is you're saying you're almost saying there's a constitutional right to a certain type of reimbursement that everybody admits they didn't get for up to two thousand and twelve so were they being deprived of their are we are or are you saying once grant a you can't take it the way we are saying more the latter but we're not saying actually either we are not saying that there's a constitutional right to a specific budget calculation method we are saying there is a statutory right which has which is a property right under the constitution so it invokes the constitution there is a statutory right to services that are adequate in scope and duration and so forth that's that that's the that's the medicaid standard when those things are determined by the state can you take them away and with respect to the truth ever take them away or without do not without due put not without due process that you missed a few words there they can take it away they just have to give due process and then you have the right to appeal if you think it was a prop that's correct i would like to have and has without all that happened and due process would have included the type of notice that would have said your benefits are being reduced which means that they would have been able to continue to receive those benefits pending resolution of the appellate process right that's exactly right and your own and all of this all of this  is is the circular it circles around the substantive issues because what we're really talking about is association all standing and whether the case may go forward to let the district court make that decision which has not been made now this is not a question of who wins on the substance this is a question of whether there is ongoing harm so that excepted association all standing is not has not become moot in the course of the litigation i mean isn't that all that's at issue that's exactly right here only as to the three i'm sorry the association standing is for is for the walker those are the ones that are before the court they are not all the members but that but that is the state of the record and we are perfectly comfortable with the it is so let and so you find yourself in the same position as cleveland in double i c p of course you have an appropriate back to one thing that you said and then i will then i will sit down so you see it can't be true when you have to show standing in terms of a case of patterson and you have to show standing for the relief being sought because even if you can show a social you still standing for the relief being sought by the one named plaintiff there for you it you can also pursue the relief being sought for all of the other people that you say are members for which there was no proof offered that you had anybody other than the three that cannot be true your honor with with respect under cleveland and double a c p and under supreme court case love it followed it is true what your best case for that proposition that if you show standing with respect to the relief of being side that you then have the right to pursue that same relief for a whole bunch of other unnamed people what's what your best guy it's exactly what happened in