CLOSED,MEDIATION
U.S. District Court Northern District of Florida (Tallahassee) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:18−cv−00569−RH−MJF

ALEXANDER et al v. SENIOR et al Assigned to: JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE Referred to: MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK Cause: 28:1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 12/12/2018 Date Terminated: 05/13/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 446 Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities − Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER

represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK WENZEL FENTON CABASSA PA − TAMPA FL 1110 N FLORIDA AVE SUITE 300 TAMPA, FL 33602 813−379−2560 Fax: 813−229−8712 Email: aheystek@wfclaw.com TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

DAVID REICHENBERG COZEN O'CONNOR − NEW YORK NY 277 PARK AVENUE NEW YORK, NY 10172 212−883−4900 Email: dreichenberg@cozen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN COZEN O'CONNOR − NEW YORK NY 45 BROADWAY ATRIUM SUITE 1600 NEW YORK, NY 10006 212−453−3729 Fax: 646−461−2073 Email: jsullivan@cozen.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON COZEN O'CONNOR − MIAMI FL 200 S BISCAYNE BLVD STE 3000 MIAMI, FL 33131 786−871−3996 Email: agomez−rodon@cozen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CAROL ANN WONG JUSTICE IN AGING − WASHINGTON DC 1444 EYE STREET NW SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−683−1995 Email: cwong@justiceinaging.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

CHELSEA LEE DUNN SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352−271−8890 Email: chelsea.dunn@southernlegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON JUSTICE IN AGING − LOS ANGELES CA 3660 WILSHIRE BOULEVARD SUITE 718 LOS ANGELES, CA 90010 213−674−2813 Email: ecarlson@justiceinaging.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA − HOLLYWOOD FL 1930 HARRISON ST STE 104 HOLLYWOOD, FL 33020 850−488−9071 Email: jenniferh@disabilityrightsflorida.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL SOUTHERN LEGAL COUNSEL INC − GAINESVILLE FL 1229 NW 12TH AVE GAINESVILLE, FL 32601−4113 352−271−8890 Fax: 352−271−8347 Email: jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
MATTHEW EVAN LEWITZ COZEN O'CONNOR − LOS ANGELES CA 601 S FIGUEROA ST STE 3700 LOS ANGELES, CA 90017 213−892−7937 Email: mlewitz@cozen.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT LAW OFFICE OF NANCY E WRIGHT 3231 NW 47TH PL GAINESVILLE, FL 32605 352−871−8255 Fax: 352−372−6291 Email: newright.law@gmail.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN DISABILITY RIGHTS FLORIDA − TALLAHASSEE FL 2473 CARE DR STE 200 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32304 850−488−9071

Plaintiff GEORGE COLLIER TERMINATED: 08/27/2019
Plaintiff RAIMUNDO LEAL TERMINATED: 06/03/2019

Fax: 850−488−8640 Email: RachelS@disabilityrightsflorida.org ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REGAN M BAILEY JUSTICE IN AGING − WASHINGTON DC 1444 I STREET NW SUITE 1100 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−552−6743 Email: rbailey@justiceinaging.org PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff
JEFFERSON LANGLAISE TERMINATED: 02/10/2020

DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff
CELIA LOPEZ TERMINATED: 06/03/2019

CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Plaintiff GERALDINE DAVENPORT TERMINATED: 04/09/2020
Plaintiff

JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/09/2019 LEAD ATTORNEY
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

DAVID WRIGHT
Plaintiff JEANNIE HAYRE TERMINATED: 03/06/2020

represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REGAN M BAILEY (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN

Plaintiff SHERYL SCHNEDIER

(See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REGAN M BAILEY (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN

Plaintiff JOHN DEETER
V. Defendant

(See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REGAN M BAILEY (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK (See above for address) TERMINATED: 09/19/2019
ASHLEY LAUREN GOMEZ−RODON (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CAROL ANN WONG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
CHELSEA LEE DUNN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
DAVID REICHENBERG (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JODI LYNN SIEGEL (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
NANCY ERICKSEN WRIGHT (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
REGAN M BAILEY (See above for address) PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by

JUSTIN SENIOR IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION TERMINATED: 02/19/2019
Defendant JEFFREY BRAGG IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS TERMINATED: 02/19/2019 Defendant MARY MAYHEW IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY FLORIDA AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION

ANDREW TAYLOR SHEERAN STATE OF FLORIDA − AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE − TALLAHASSEE FL AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE ADMN 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG #3, MS#3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−412−3670 Fax: 850−921−0158 Email: andrew.sheeran@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANDY V BARDOS GRAYROBINSON PA − TALLAHASSEE FL 301 S BRONOUGH ST STE 600 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−577−9090 Fax: 850−577−3311 Email: andy.bardos@gray−robinson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE , JR GRAYROBINSON PA − TALLAHASSEE FL 301 S BRONOUGH ST STE 600 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 850−577−9090 Fax: 850−577−3311 Email: tim.moore@gray−robinson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN ROBERT GROW HEALTH CARE ADMINISTRATION − TALLAHASSEE FL STATE OF FLORIDA 2727 MAHAN DR BLDG #3 MAIL STOP 3 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32308 850−412−3669 Fax: 850−922−6484 Email: stefan.grow@ahca.myflorida.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANDY V BARDOS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE , JR (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by ANDREW TAYLOR SHEERAN (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANDY V BARDOS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY HOFFMAN LUKIS GRAYROBINSON PA −

Defendant RICHARD PRUDOM IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ELDER AFFAIRS
Amicus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

TALLAHASSEE FL 301 S BRONOUGH ST STE 600 TALLAHASSEE, FL 32301 Email: ashley.lukis@gray−robinson.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE , JR (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
STEFAN ROBERT GROW (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by RICHARD TRITSCHLER FLORIDA DEPT OF ELDER AFFAIRS 4040 ESPLANADE WAY TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399−7000 850−414−2342 Email: tritschlerr@elderaffairs.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ANDY V BARDOS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
ASHLEY HOFFMAN LUKIS (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE , JR (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by DEENA S FOX DOJ−CRT SPECIAL LITIGATION SECTION 950 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE STE 4CON 10−143 WASHINGTON, DC 20005 202−305−1361 Email: deena.fox@usdoj.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 12/12/2018 12/12/2018
12/12/2018
12/12/2018

# Docket Text
1 CIVIL COVER SHEET. (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
2 COMPLAINT against JEFFREY BRAGG, JUSTIN SENIOR, filed by GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, RAIMUNDO LEAL, GEORGE COLLIER, CELIA LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 SUMMONS, # 2 SUMMONS) (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
3 NOTICE OF PRIOR SIMILAR CASES by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 12/12/2018)
4 Filing Fee: $ 400.00, receipt number FLN400035641. Fee status updated to paid. (cle) (Entered: 12/12/2018)

12/13/2018 12/13/2018 12/13/2018
12/14/2018 12/17/2018 12/17/2018 12/18/2018
12/18/2018 12/18/2018 12/18/2018 12/19/2018
12/20/2018 12/20/2018
12/21/2018 01/03/2019 01/10/2019

5 Summons Issued as to JUSTIN SENIOR. (cle) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
6 Summons Issued as to JEFFREY BRAGG. (cle) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Carol A. Wong.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4357102.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (WONG, CAROL) (Entered: 12/13/2018)
8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Regan Bailey.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4358723.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit certificate of good standing) (BAILEY, REGAN) (Entered: 12/14/2018)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHEAL J. FRANK notified that action is needed re: 8 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Referred to MICHAEL J FRANK. (cle) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK notified that action is needed re: 7 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Referred to MICHAEL J FRANK. (cle) (Entered: 12/17/2018)
9 ORDER re 8 is GRANTED. Attorney Regan Bailey is ADMITTED to practice pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs in this action pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(c). Attorney Regan Bailey must, upon receipt of the Certificate of Good standing from the Bar of the District of Columbia, e−file the certificate with the clerk of the court. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 12/18/18. (mlp) Certificate of Good Standing filed ECF No. 11 . Modified on 12/19/2018 (jcw). (Entered: 12/18/2018)
10 ORDER granting 7 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney Carol A. Wong is ADMITTED pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs in this action pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(c). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 12/18/2018. (jcw) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
11 AMENDED DOCUMENT by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. Amendment to 9 Order, Certificate of Good Standing (BAILEY, REGAN) (Entered: 12/18/2018)
**Duplicate − ORDER granting 8 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 12/18/2018. (erl) (Entered: 11/01/2019)
12 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Eric M. Carlson.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4361955.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit certificate of standing from CA State Bar) (CARLSON, ERIC) (Entered: 12/19/2018)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK notified that action is needed re: 12 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Referred to MICHAEL J FRANK. (cle) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
13 ORDER granting 12 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 12/20/2018. (Appointed ERIC MATTHEW CARLSON for BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ) (jcw) (Entered: 12/20/2018)
14 SUMMONS Returned Executed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. All Defendants. (Attachments: # 1 Affidavit Return of Service (Senior), # 2 Affidavit Return of Service (Bragg)) (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 12/21/2018)
15 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer by JEFFREY BRAGG, JUSTIN SENIOR. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/03/2019)
16 ANSWER to 2 Complaint by JEFFREY BRAGG, JUSTIN SENIOR. (SHEERAN, ANDREW) (Entered: 01/10/2019)

01/11/2019 01/11/2019 01/15/2019
01/15/2019
01/15/2019 01/16/2019
01/16/2019 01/17/2019 01/30/2019 01/30/2019 02/01/2019 02/12/2019 02/14/2019 02/19/2019
03/12/2019

ACTION NO LONGER REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK notified that action is needed re: 16 Answer to Complaint. (cle) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
17 NOTICE of Appearance by STEFAN ROBERT GROW on behalf of JUSTIN SENIOR (GROW, STEFAN) (Entered: 01/11/2019)
18 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David Reichenberg.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4377690.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (GOMEZ−RODON, ASHLEY) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
19 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John Sullivan.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4377989.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Good Standing) (GOMEZ−RODON, ASHLEY) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK notified that action is needed Re: 18 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by David Reichenberg, 19 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by John Sullivan. Referred to MICHAEL J FRANK. (jcw) (Entered: 01/15/2019)
20 ORDER granting 19 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney John J. Sullivan is admitted pro hac vice to represent thePlaintiffs pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(c). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 1/16/2019. (JOHN JOSEPH SULLIVAN added for BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ) (jcw) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
21 ORDER re 18 is GRANTED. Attorney David Reichenberg is admitted pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs pursuant to Local Rule 11.1(c). Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 1/16/19. (mlp) (Entered: 01/16/2019)
22 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. The defendants' unopposed motion, ECF No. 15 , to extend the deadline to respond to the complaint is granted. The deadline is extended to 2/7/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/17/2019. (kjw) (Entered: 01/18/2019)
23 NOTICE of Appearance by ANDY V BARDOS on behalf of All Defendants (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
24 NOTICE of Appearance by JAMES TIMOTHY MOORE, JR on behalf of All Defendants (MOORE, JAMES) (Entered: 01/30/2019)
25 NOTICE of Appearance by CHELSEA LEE DUNN on behalf of All Plaintiffs (DUNN, CHELSEA) (Entered: 02/01/2019)
ACTION NO LONGER REQUIRED BY DISTRICT JUDGE: Chambers of JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE notified that action is needed re: 22 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE COMPLAINT. The Answer was filed on 1/10/2019 − Doc. 16 . (cle) (Entered: 02/12/2019)
26 REPORT of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/14/2019)
27 SCHEDULING AND MEDIATION ORDER − re: 26 Report of Rule 26(f) Planning Meeting. FACT Discovery due by 11/15/2019. EXPERT Discovery Deadline set for 4/15/2020. Dispositive Motions to be filed by 5/13/2020. Jury Trial set for 9/21/2020 at 8:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Case referred to mediation. Mediation Report due by 12/13/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/19/2019. (cle) (Entered: 02/20/2019)
28 MOTION to Certify Class by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/26/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Waitlist, # 2 Exhibit Long Order Certifying Class, # 3 Exhibit Declaration Kaye, # 4 Exhibit Declaration Willink, # 5 Exhibit Declaration Russo, # 6 Exhibit Declaration Alexander, # 7 Exhibit Declaration Collier,

03/15/2019 03/18/2019 03/18/2019 03/18/2019
03/19/2019
03/20/2019 03/20/2019 03/22/2019 04/05/2019 04/09/2019
05/14/2019 05/24/2019 05/31/2019
06/03/2019

# 8 Exhibit Declaration Roti, # 9 Exhibit Declaration Langlaise, # 10 Exhibit Declaration Cordner, # 11 Exhibit Declaration Bell, # 12 Exhibit Declaration Hemness, # 13 Exhibit Declaration Krooks) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/12/2019)
29 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 MOTION to Certify Class by JEFFREY BRAGG, JUSTIN SENIOR. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/15/2019)
30 NOTICE of Appearance by JENNIFER THOMPSON HARLEY on behalf of All Plaintiffs (HARLEY, JENNIFER) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
31 STIPULATION of Dismissal by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, RAIMUNDO LEAL, CELIA LOPEZ. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/18/2019)
32 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE CLASS−CERTIFICATION MOTION − Defendants' unopposed motion, ECF No. 29 , to extend the deadline to respond to the class−certification motion is granted. The deadline is extended to 5/12/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/18/2019. (cle) (Entered: 03/19/2019)
34 ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS LEAL AND LOPEZ − The parties have stipulated to the dismissal without prejudice of the claims of two plaintiffs. ECF No. 31 . The claims of other plaintiffs remain pending. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "Based on Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1) and 54(b), the claims of the plaintiffs Raimundo Leal and Celia Lopez are dismissed without prejudice." Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/19/2019. (cle) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
33 Joint MOTION for Entry of Rule 502(d) Order by JEFFREY BRAGG, JUSTIN SENIOR. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
35 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − re: 34 ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF PLAINTIFFS LEAL AND LOPEZ. (cle) (Entered: 03/20/2019)
36 ORDER ON DISCLOSURE OF PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. The joint motion for an Order under Federal Rule of Evidence Rule 502(d) is granted. See ECF No. 33 . Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/22/2019. (kjw) (Entered: 03/22/2019)
37 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 28 MOTION to Certify Class by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 04/05/2019)
38 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE CLASS−CERTIFICATION MOTION − The defendants' unopposed motion, ECF No. 37 , to extend the deadline to respond to the class−certification motion is granted. The deadline is extended to 5/31/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/9/2019. (cle) (Entered: 04/10/2019)
39 NOTICE of Appearance by ASHLEY HOFFMAN LUKIS on behalf of All Defendants (LUKIS, ASHLEY) (Entered: 05/14/2019)
40 NOTICE of intent not to rely on two declarations by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE re 28 MOTION to Certify Class (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 05/24/2019)
41 RESPONSE in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Certify Class filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Russo Deposition, # 2 Exhibit B − Alexander Interrogatory Answers, # 3 Exhibit C − Collier Interrogatory Answers, # 4 Exhibit D − Langlaise Interrogatory Answers, # 5 Exhibit E − Davenport Interrogatory Answers, # 6 Exhibit F − McGrath Declaration, # 7 Exhibit G − Willink Deposition, # 8 Exhibit H − Kaye Deposition, # 9 Exhibit I − Vergeson Declaration) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 05/31/2019)
42 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/03/2019)

06/03/2019 06/04/2019 06/04/2019
06/06/2019 06/06/2019 06/07/2019 06/07/2019 06/12/2019 06/12/2019 06/12/2019 06/12/2019 06/15/2019 06/17/2019 06/17/2019
06/20/2019

43 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against JEFFREY BRAGG, MARY MAYHEW, filed by GERALDINE DAVENPORT, GEORGE COLLIER, BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/03/2019)
44 Consent MOTION to Strike Declarations of Rebecca C. Bell (ECF No. 28−11) and Emma Hemness (ECF No. 28−12) by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 6/18/2019). (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
45 MOTION to Strike Portions of the Declarations of Natalie Russo (ECF No. 28−5) and Stephen Kaye (ECF No. 28−3) by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 6/18/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/04/2019)
46 Joint MOTION for Protective Order by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Qualified Protective Order Governing Confidential Information) (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
47 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Howard S. Krooks (ECF No. 28−13) by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 6/20/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/06/2019)
48 MOTION for Leave to File re 28 MOTION to Certify Class Reply by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
49 MOTION for Leave to File re 28 MOTION to Certify Class Amended by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/07/2019)
50 QUALIFIED PROTECTIVE ORDER GOVERNING CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/12/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
51 RESPONSE to Motion re 48 MOTION for Leave to File re 28 MOTION to Certify Class Reply filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/12/2019)
52 ORDER STRIKING THE BELL AND HEMNESS DECLARATIONS − The defendants' unopposed motion to strike, ECF No. 44 , is granted. The declarations of Rebecca C. Bell and Emma Hemness, ECF Nos. 28 −11 and 28 −12, are struck. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/12/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
53 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE RUSSO AND KAYE DECLARATIONS − Defendants' motion, ECF No. 45 , to strike portions of the Russo and Kaye declarations is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/12/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/13/2019)
54 Consent MOTION to Substitute Attorney by RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/15/2019)
55 RESPONSE to Motion re 42 MOTION to Amend/Correct 2 Complaint filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/17/2019)
56 ORDER SUBSTITUTING ATTORNEYS − Motion to substitute attorneys, ECF No. 54 , is granted. Francis A. Carbone II is granted leave to withdraw, effective immediately. The appearance of Richard D. Tritschler is noted. Added attorney RICHARD TRITSCHLER for RICHARD PRUDOM. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/17/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/18/2019)
57 RESPONSE in Opposition re 47 MOTION to Strike Declaration of Howard S. Krooks (ECF No. 28−13) filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 06/20/2019)

06/20/2019
06/21/2019 06/27/2019
06/27/2019 07/11/2019 07/17/2019 07/31/2019 08/23/2019 08/27/2019 09/06/2019 09/09/2019 09/19/2019 10/02/2019

58 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO FILE THE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT − Plaintiffs' motion, ECF No. 42 , for leave to file the first amended complaint is granted. The first amended complaint, ECF No. 43 , is deemed filed as of June 20, 2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/20/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
59 RESPONSE to Motion re 49 MOTION for Leave to File re 28 MOTION to Certify Class Amended filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 06/21/2019)
60 ORDER ON CLASS−CERTIFICATION PROCEDURES − The plaintiffs' motion, ECF No. 49 , for leave to file an amended class−certification motion is granted in part. The plaintiffs may file by July 17, 2019 a supplemental memorandum in support of their original class−certification motion, ECF No. 28 . The plaintiffs' motion, ECF No. 48 , for leave to file a reply memorandum is denied. The defendants may file a supplemental memorandum in opposition to class certification. The deadline is 14 days after the plaintiffs' supplemental memorandum is filed. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/27/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
61 ORDER DENYING THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE KROOKS DECLARATION − denying 47 Motion to Strike Declaration of Howard S. Krooks. The defendants' motion, ECF No. 47 , to strike the Krooks declaration is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 6/27/2019. (cle) (Entered: 06/28/2019)
62 ANSWER to 43 Amended Complaint by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 07/11/2019)
63 MEMORANDUM in Support re 28 MOTION to Certify Class filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 07/17/2019)
64 MEMORANDUM in Opposition re 28 MOTION to Certify Class by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 07/31/2019)
65 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff George Collier by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 08/23/2019)
66 ORDER.Based on the parties' stipulation, ECF No. 65 , the claims of the plaintiff George Collier are dismissed without prejudice. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 08/27/2019. (rcb) (Entered: 08/27/2019)
67 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Amanda Heystek by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 09/06/2019)
68 ORDER GRANTING LEAVE TO WITHDRAW − HEYSTEK − Attorney AMANDA ERIN HEYSTEK's motion for leave to withdraw, ECF No. 67 , is granted, effective immediately. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 9/9/2019. (cle) (Entered: 09/09/2019)
69 NOTICE of Appearance by RACHEL LOUISE SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN on behalf of All Plaintiffs (SIEGEL−MCLAUGHLIN, RACHEL) (Entered: 09/19/2019)
70 MOTION to Compel Amended Interrogatory Answers by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Alexanders Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B − Davenports Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit C − Langlaises Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit D − Deeters Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit E − Hayres Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit F − Schneiders Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit G − Wrights Answers to First Set of Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit H − Alexanders Answers to Third Set of Interrogatories, # 9 Exhibit I − Davenports Answers to Third Set of Interrogatories, # 10 Exhibit J − Langlaises Answers to Third Set of Interrogatories, # 11 Exhibit K − Deeters Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 12 Exhibit L − Hayres Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 13 Exhibit M − Schneiders Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories,

10/04/2019 10/11/2019 10/15/2019
10/15/2019
10/21/2019 10/21/2019 10/22/2019 10/22/2019
10/22/2019
10/27/2019 10/28/2019
11/20/2019 11/26/2019

# 14 Exhibit N − Wrights Answers to Second Set of Interrogatories, # 15 Exhibit O − Correspondence (September 6, 2019), # 16 Exhibit P − Correspondence (September 17, 2019), # 17 Exhibit Q − Correspondence (September 22, 2019)) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 10/02/2019)
71 Joint MOTION to Extend Time re Depositions by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 10/04/2019)
72 MOTION for Summary Judgment by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 11/1/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 10/11/2019)
73 DOCKET ANNOTATION BY COURT: re: 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment. TO ALL COUNSEL: Counsel is advised that for all future pleadings, for this case and any future cases assigned to Judge Hinkle, any exhibit attached to a document filing should be properly identified. (Example: Deposition of John Doe rather than Exhibit A.) (cle) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
74 RESPONSE in Opposition re 70 MOTION to Compel Amended Interrogatory Answers filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Def AHCA's Response to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit Defs' Response to Request for Production) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/15/2019)
75 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 10/21/2019)
76 ORDER EXTENDING DEPOSITION DEADLINES − The parties' motion to extend the deadlines for noticing and conducting depositions, ECF No. 71 , is granted in part. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/21/2019. (cle) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
77 Amended MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (HEYSTEK, AMANDA) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
78 PLAINTIFFS' SECOND AMENDED UNOPPOSED MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response to 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (HARLEY, JENNIFER) ** Modified on 10/22/2019 to amend title of document. (cle) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
79 ORDER EXTENDING SUMMARY−JUDGMENT DEADLINES − Plaintiffs' unopposed motion, see ECF Nos. 75 , 77 , and 78 , to extend the deadline to respond to the summary−judgment motion is granted. The deadline is extended to 11/26/2019. The deadline for a reply memorandum is extended to 12/10/2019. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/22/2019. (cle) (Entered: 10/22/2019)
80 ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION − The class−certification motion, ECF No. 28 , is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/27/2019. (cle) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
81 ORDER COMPELLING COMPLETE INTERROGATORY ANSWERS − The motion to compel, ECF No. 70 , is granted in part. The plaintiffs' objections to the defendants' interrogatories 4 and 7 are overruled. By November 12, 2019, the plaintiffs must serve complete answers to the defendants' interrogatories 4 (from the first set of interrogatories) and 3, 6, 7, 8, and 9 (from the second and third sets of interrogatories). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 10/28/2019. (cle) (Entered: 10/29/2019)
82 NOTICE of Next Friend for Plaintiff Langlaise by JEFFERSON LANGLAISE (HARLEY, JENNIFER) (Entered: 11/20/2019)
83 RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit DOEA Depo Excerpt, # 2 Exhibit Plaintiffs' Resp. to Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit Smith Depo Excerpt, # 4 Exhibit Harris Depo

11/27/2019 11/27/2019 11/27/2019 12/03/2019 12/10/2019 12/17/2019 12/19/2019 12/19/2019 12/23/2019 12/26/2019
12/27/2019
12/30/2019
01/13/2020 01/14/2020

Excerpt, # 5 Exhibit CMS Letter to AHCA) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 11/26/2019)
84 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Matthew E. Lewitz.( Filing fee $ 201 receipt number AFLNDC−4720278.) by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Certificate of Standing of Matthew E. Lewitz) (LEWITZ, MATTHEW) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK notified that action is needed re: 84 MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Matthew E. Lewitz. Referred to MICHAEL J FRANK. (cle) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
85 ORDER − GRANTING 84 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Attorney MATTHEW E LEWITZ is admitted pro hac vice to represent the Plaintiffs. Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE MICHAEL J FRANK on 11/27/2019. (erl) (Entered: 11/27/2019)
86 MOTION to Strike 82 Notice (Other) by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 12/17/2019). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Deposition of Jefferson Langlaise) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 12/03/2019)
87 REPLY to Response to Motion re 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 12/10/2019)
88 RESPONSE in Opposition re 86 MOTION to Strike 82 Notice (Other) filed by JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 2017 701S, # 2 Exhibit 2018 701S, # 3 Exhibit August 2019 701S, # 4 Exhibit November 2019 701S) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 12/17/2019)
89 NOTICE of Appearance by DEENA S FOX on behalf of United States of America (FOX, DEENA) (Entered: 12/19/2019)
90 AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF (Titled STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA) by United States of America re 72 MOTION for Summary Judgment . (FOX, DEENA) Modified on 12/20/2019 (blb). (Entered: 12/19/2019)
91 MOTION for Leave to File re 88 Response in Opposition to Motion, by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 12/23/2019)
92 Defendants' Motion To Strike The United States' Statement Of Interest Or In The Alternative, For Leave To Respond , (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 1/9/2020).), MOTION for Leave to File Reply by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) Modified to edit title on 12/27/2019 (rcb). (Entered: 12/26/2019)
93 ORDER APPROVING THE NEXT FRIEND FOR THE PLAINTIFF LANGLAISE AND DENYING 86 THE MOTION TO STRIKE THE NEXT FRIEND'S APPEARANCE.The appearance of the next friend Lynette Langlaise−Cordner for the plaintiff Jefferson Langlaise is approved. The complaint is deemed amended accordingly. The motion to strike, ECF No. 86 , is denied. The motion for leave to file a reply memorandum, ECF No. 91 , is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/27/2019. (rcb) (Entered: 12/27/2019)
94 ORDER ALLOWING A RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT'S STATEMENT OF INTEREST. The United States is granted leave to file its statement of interest, ECF No. 90 . The defendants' motion, ECF No. 92 , to strike the statement of interest is denied. The defendants' alternative motion for leave to respond is granted. The defendants may file by 1/13/2020 a response not exceeding 2,400 words. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 12/30/2019. (kjw) (Entered: 12/31/2019)
95 RESPONSE by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM re 90 Amicus Curiae Brief . (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 01/13/2020)
96 MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery to disclose Expert Report by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 01/14/2020)

01/18/2020 02/06/2020
02/07/2020 02/10/2020 02/10/2020
02/11/2020 02/11/2020 02/12/2020 02/15/2020 02/15/2020 02/19/2020 02/20/2020

97 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR RULE 26(a)(2) DISCLOSURES − Plaintiffs' unopposed motion, ECF No. 96 , to extend the deadline for Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(a)(2) disclosures is granted. The deadline is extended to 1/21/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 1/18/2020. (cle) (Entered: 01/21/2020)
98 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 2/27/2020). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A Alexanders Answers to Interrogatories, # 2 Exhibit B Davenports Answers to Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit C Deeters Answers to Interrogatories, # 4 Exhibit D Hayres Answers to Interrogatories, # 5 Exhibit E Langlaises Answers to Interrogatories, # 6 Exhibit F Schneiders Answers to Interrogatories, # 7 Exhibit G Wrights Answers to Interrogatories, # 8 Exhibit H Deposition of David Wright, # 9 Exhibit I Deposition of Benjamin Alexander) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 02/06/2020)
99 Stipulation of Dismissal of Plaintiff JEFFERSON LANGLAISE (HARLEY, JENNIFER) Modified on 2/10/2020 to correct document title. (kjw) (Entered: 02/07/2020)
100 ORDER DISMISSING THE CLAIMS OF THE PLAINTIFF JEFFERSON LANGLAISE. Based on the parties' stipulation, ECF No. 99 , the claims of the plaintiff Jefferson Langlaise are dismissed without prejudice. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/10/2020. (kjw) (Entered: 02/10/2020)
101 Plaintiffs' Second Motion for Class Certification and Request for Oral Argument by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JOHN DEETER, JEANNIE HAYRE, SHERYL SCHNEDIER, DAVID WRIGHT. (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 2/24/2020). (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Alexander Interrogatory Answers, # 2 Exhibit McGrath Depo Excerpt, # 3 Exhibit 701S Form, # 4 Exhibit AHCA Interrogatory Answers, # 5 Exhibit Waitlist August 2019, # 6 Exhibit LTC 2017−2019, # 7 Exhibit DOEA 30(b)(6) Depo Excerpt, # 8 Exhibit Kaye Declaration, # 9 Exhibit AHCA 30(b)(6) Depo Excerpt, # 10 Exhibit Agnew Depo Excerpt, # 11 Exhibit Waitlists December 2016−2019, # 12 Exhibit Alexander 701S, # 13 Exhibit Schneider 701S, # 14 Exhibit Wright 701S, # 15 Exhibit Deeter 701S, # 16 Exhibit Waitlist September 2019, # 17 Exhibit Gaffner Report) (SIEGEL, JODI) Modified to edit title on 2/12/2020 (rcb). (Entered: 02/10/2020)
102 Plaintiff's Notice of Filing Redacted Exhibits to Second Motion for Class Certification (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit 12 − Alexander 701S, # 2 Exhibit 13 − Schneider 701S, # 3 Exhibit 14 − Wright 701S, # 4 Exhibit 15 − Deeter 701S) (SIEGEL, JODI) Modified to edit title on 2/12/2020 (rcb). (Entered: 02/11/2020)
103 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion to File Unredacted Exhibits to Second Motion for Class Certification Under Seal (SIEGEL, JODI) Modified to edit title on 2/12/2020 (rcb). (Entered: 02/11/2020)
104 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re 101 Second MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 02/12/2020)
105 ORDER SEALING ECF NO. 101−12 THRU 101−15 − The unopposed motion, ECF No. 103 , to seal ECF Nos. 101 −12 thru 101 −15 is granted. The clerk must maintain those documents under seal. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/15/2020. (cle) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
106 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE TO RESPOND TO THE SECOND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION − Defendants' unopposed motion, ECF No. 104 , to extend the deadline to respond to the second motion for class certification, ECF No. 101 , is granted. The deadline is extended to 3/9/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 2/15/2020. (cle) (Entered: 02/18/2020)
107 MOTION for Leave to Appear For Leave For Next Friend For Plaintiff Wright to Appear and for Amendment of Complaint by DAVID WRIGHT. (HARLEY, JENNIFER) (Entered: 02/19/2020)
108 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to David Wright ( (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response not filed earlier: 3/5/2020).), MOTION for Summary

02/27/2020
03/02/2020 03/03/2020 03/04/2020
03/05/2020 03/06/2020 03/06/2020 03/09/2020

Judgment as to David Wright ( (Internal deadline for referral to judge if response to summary judgment not filed earlier: 3/12/2020).) by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Deposition of David Wright, # 2 Exhibit B − Deposition of Sandra Griffin) (MOORE, JAMES) (Entered: 02/20/2020)
109 RESPONSE in Opposition re 98 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JOHN DEETER, JEANNIE HAYRE, SHERYL SCHNEDIER, DAVID WRIGHT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Plaintiff's Amended Answers to Interrogatories) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 02/27/2020)
110 Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/02/2020)
111 STIPULATION of Dismissal of Plaintiff Jeannie Hayre by JEANNIE HAYRE. (HARLEY, JENNIFER) (Entered: 03/03/2020)
112 RESPONSE in Opposition re 107 MOTION for Leave to Appear For Leave For Next Friend For Plaintiff Wright to Appear and for Amendment of Complaint filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Deposition of Natalie Russo, # 2 Exhibit B − Deposition of Sandra Griffin, # 3 Exhibit C − Deposition of John Deeter) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/04/2020)
113 ORDER EXTENDING CERTAIN DEADLINES RE 110 . Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/5/20. (sms) (Entered: 03/05/2020)
Set Deadlines − The deadline for any reply memorandum in support of the defendants' second motion for partial summary judgment is extended to 3/12/2020. The deadline for the response to the motion to dismiss David Wright's claims is extended to 3/12/2020. (cle) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
114 ORDER DISMISSING MS. HAYRE'S CLAIMS − Based on the parties' stipulation, ECF No. 111 , the claims of the plaintiff Jeannie Hayre are dismissed without prejudice. I do not direct the entry of judgment. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/6/2020. (cle) (Entered: 03/06/2020)
115 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Hearing on all pending motions set for 3/27/2020 10:00 AM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 1234#

03/09/2020 03/12/2020 03/12/2020
03/16/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
116 RESPONSE in Opposition re 101 Second MOTION to Certify Class and Request for Oral Argument filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Bardos Declaration, # 2 Exhibit B − Alexander's Answers to Interrogatories, # 3 Exhibit C − Deposition of John Deeter) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/09/2020)
117 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 98 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
118 RESPONSE in Opposition re 108 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to David Wright MOTION for Summary Judgment as to David Wright filed by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JOHN DEETER, SHERYL SCHNEDIER, DAVID WRIGHT. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Russo Depo Excerpt, # 2 Exhibit Wright Ans to ROGs, # 3 Exhibit AHCA 30(b)(6) Depo Excerpt, # 4 Exhibit Wright 701S 2016) (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/12/2020)
119 REPLY to Response to Motion re 98 Second MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/16/2020)

03/16/2020 03/17/2020

120 ORDER FOR PRETRIAL CONFERENCE − Attorney Conference to take place by 8/4/2020. Pretrial Stipulation due by 8/18/2020. Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2020 at 1:00 PM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Jury Trial set for 9/21/2020 at 8:15 AM in U.S. Courthouse Tallahassee before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/16/2020. (cle) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
121 NOTICE OF TELEPHONIC HEARING: Telephonic Pretrial Conference set for 8/25/2020 01:00 PM before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE.

Call in number: 888−684−8852 Access code: 3243416# Security code: 1234#

03/17/2020 03/19/2020 03/19/2020 03/20/2020 03/23/2020
03/27/2020
03/27/2020 03/28/2020

s/ Cindy Markley Courtroom Deputy Clerk (ckm) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
122 MOTION to Extend Time and Deadlines in Scheduling Order by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GERALDINE DAVENPORT, JOHN DEETER, SHERYL SCHNEDIER, DAVID WRIGHT. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 03/17/2020)
123 REPLY to Response to Motion re 108 MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction as to David Wright MOTION for Summary Judgment as to David Wright filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/19/2020)
125 ORDER EXTENDING THE DEADLINE FOR A SUMMARY−JUDGMENT REPLY MEMORANDUM − The defendants' unopposed motion, ECF No. 117 , to extend the deadline for a reply memorandum in support of their second motion for partial summary judgment is granted. The reply memorandum filed on March 16, 2020 is deemed timely. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/19/2020. (cle) (Entered: 03/22/2020)
124 FIRST ORDER ON THE MOTION TO AMEND THE SCHEDULE. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/19/20. (sms) (Entered: 03/20/2020)
126 RESPONSE in Opposition re 122 MOTION to Extend Time and Deadlines in Scheduling Order filed by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A − Email Correspondence (Planet Depos), # 2 Exhibit B − Email Correspondence (Phipps Reporting}, # 3 Exhibit C − Email Correspondence, # 4 Exhibit D − Deposition of John Deeter, # 5 Exhibit E − Deposition of Sheryl Schneider, # 6 Exhibit F − Executive Order No. 20−69, # 7 Exhibit G − Deposition of Raimundo Leal, # 8 Exhibit H − Deposition of Carlos Leal, # 9 Exhibit I − Email Correspondence, # 10 Exhibit J − Email Correspondence, # 11 Exhibit K − Email Correspondence, # 12 Exhibit L − Email Correspondence) (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 03/23/2020)
127 Minute Entry for proceedings held before JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE: Telephonic Motions Hearing held on 3/27/2020. Court hears argument of counsel on the Motion to Certify Class, Motions for Partial Summary Judgment, Motion for Leave for Next Friend, Motion to Dismiss, and Motion to Extend Time. Ruling by Court: Motion to Certify Class is denied; Motion for Leave for Next Friend is granted; Motion to Dismiss is denied; Motion to Extend Time is granted in part and denied in part. Deadline for expert depositions is extended to May 1. Deadline for dispositive motions is extended to May 22. Rulings on motions will be set out in more detail in a forthcoming order. (Court Reporter Lisa Snyder) (ckm) (Entered: 03/27/2020)
128 ORDER ALLOWING MS. GRIFFIN TO APPEAR AS NEXT FRIEND FOR MR. WRIGHT − The motion to allow Sandra Griffin to appear as next friend for the plaintiff David K. Wright, ECF No. 107 , is granted. The complaint is deemed amended accordingly. The defendants' motion, ECF No. 108 , to dismiss or alternatively for summary judgment on Mr. Wright's claims is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/27/2020. (cle) (Entered: 03/30/2020)
129 ORDER EXTENDING 26(a)(2) AND SUMMARY−JUDGMENT DEADLINES − The motion to extend deadlines, ECF No. 122 , is granted in part. The expert−discovery deadline is extended to 5/1/2020. The deadline to move for summary judgment is extended to 5/22/2020. The deadline to mediate remains April 29, 2020.

03/31/2020 03/31/2020
03/31/2020 04/07/2020

Except as modified by this order, the preexisting schedule remains in place. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/28/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
130 ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS' FIRST MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT − The defendants' first motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 72 , is granted. I do not direct the entry of judgment. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/31/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
131 ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANT'S SECOND SUMMARY−JUDGMENT MOTION IN PART − The defendants' second summary−judgment motion, ECF No. 98 , is granted in part. Any claims for relief on behalf of individuals who are not named plaintiffs are dismissed. I do not direct the entry of judgment. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/31/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
132 ORDER DENYING THE SECOND MOTION TO CERTIFY A CLASS − The plaintiffs' second motion to certify a class, ECF No. 101 , is denied. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 3/31/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/01/2020)
133 NOTICE OF FILING OF OFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT of Telephonic Summary Judgment Proceedings held on 3/27/2020, before Judge Robert Hinkle. Court Reporter/Transcriber Lisa Snyder, Telephone number 850−597−4715.

Transcript may be viewed at the court public terminal or purchased through the Court Reporter/Transcriber before the deadline for Release of Transcript Restriction. After that date it may be obtained through PACER.

04/07/2020 04/09/2020 04/20/2020 04/21/2020
05/11/2020 05/11/2020 05/12/2020
05/13/2020

Redaction Request due 4/14/2020. Release of Transcript Restriction set for 7/13/2020. (ls) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
134 STIPULATION of Dismissal Plaintiff by GERALDINE DAVENPORT. (HARLEY, JENNIFER) (Entered: 04/07/2020)
135 ORDER DISMISSING MS. DAVERNPORTS CLAIMS − Based on the parties' stipulation, ECF No. 134 , the claims of the plaintiff Geraldine Davenport are dismissed without prejudice. I do not direct the entry of judgment. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/9/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/09/2020)
136 Joint MOTION to Extend Time and for Expedited Consideration by BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, JOHN DEETER, SHERYL SCHNEDIER, DAVID WRIGHT. (SIEGEL, JODI) (Entered: 04/20/2020)
137 ORDER EXTENDING 26(a)(2), MEDIATION, AND SUMMARY−JUDGMENT DEADLINES − The joint motion to extend deadlines, ECF No. 136 , is granted. Expert Discovery due by 5/22/2020. Dispositive Motions to be filed by 6/5/2020. Mediation to take place by 5/22/2020. Mediation Report due by 6/5/2020. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 4/21/2020. (cle) (Entered: 04/22/2020)
138 MEDIATION REPORT − Settled (CAPARELLO, DOMINIC) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
139 NOTICE of Settlement by MARY MAYHEW, RICHARD PRUDOM (BARDOS, ANDY) (Entered: 05/11/2020)
140 ORDER FOR DISMISSAL − re: 139 Notice of Settlement. The clerk must enter judgment stating, "The parties to the settlement agreement are ordered to comply with it. All claims in this case among all parties are voluntarily dismissed. The court reserves jurisdiction to enforce the order to comply with the settlement agreement." The clerk must close the file.. Signed by JUDGE ROBERT L HINKLE on 5/12/2020. (cle) (Entered: 05/13/2020)
141 CLERK'S JUDGMENT − re: 140 Order For Dismissal. (cle) (Main Document 141 replaced on 5/13/2020) (cle). (Entered: 05/13/2020)

 
 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER by his next friend, Timothy Collier, RAIMUNDO LEAL, JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, CELIA LOPEZ by her next friend, Javier Lopez, and GERALDINE DAVENPORT by her next friend, Barbara Roti, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

Case No.

JUSTIN SENIOR, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and JEFFREY BRAGG, in his official capacity as Secretary, Florida Department of Elder Affairs,

Defendants. ________________________________/

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUCTIVE RELIEF

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. This is a statewide class action lawsuit brought by low-income older

adults and adults with disabilities on a waitlist for long term care services. They
1

bring this suit because they seek, but cannot obtain, long-term care services in their homes or in other community-based settings. Defendants have the ability, under federal Medicaid law, to provide these services. Instead, they ration services to a restricted number of people, and, as a result, fail to address the care needs of thousands of waitlisted older adults and adults with disabilities. Defendants’ administration of the Medicaid long-term care system violates the civil rights of the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class by requiring them to choose between receiving needed care and remaining in their homes.
2. Specifically, Defendants’ administrative, planning, and funding decisions heavily favor nursing facility payment and nursing facility entry, while allowing the waitlist for Medicaid home and community based long-term care services to grow to be the longest in the nation. Meanwhile, Florida ranks near the bottom in the nation in terms of Medicaid funding of home and community based services as compared to nursing facility expenditures. Defendants utterly fail to meet the demonstrated need for home and community based long-term care services.
3. Florida’s Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Long-Term Care Program includes both nursing facility care and home and community based care services in a managed care system. Plaintiffs have sought care and treatment through
2

the part of the program that would allow them to remain in their most integrated setting, termed herein as the “Long-Term Care Waiver.” Yet, because of the discriminatory way Defendants manage the public health care system, Named Plaintiffs and others like them face the real prospect of unnecessary institutionalization.
4. Defendants’ failure to provide needed home and community based services to the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class violates the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
JURISDICTION 5. This is an action for declaratory and injunctive relief under the ADA, 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 6. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 & 1342. Plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are authorized under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201-02.
VENUE 7. Venue lies in the Northern District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b), and in the Tallahassee Division, because Defendants officially reside there. N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 3.1.
3

NAMED PLAINTIFFS 8. BENJAMIN ALEXANDER is 55-years-old. He lives with his elderly mother in Duval County, Florida. He is a person with a disability under the ADA. He is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. He wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Mr. Alexander sought services through the Long-Term Care Waiver and was placed on the waiting list in March 2018. 9. GEORGE COLLIER is 91-years-old. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 17(c)(2), he sues through his next friend, Timothy Collier. He lives in an assisted living home in St. Lucie County, Florida. He is a person with a disability under the ADA. He is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. He wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Mr. Collier sought services through the Long-Term Care Waiver and was placed on the waitlist in 2015. 10. RAIMUNDO LEAL is 76-years-old. He lives in his own apartment in Hillsborough County, Florida. He is a person with a disability under the ADA. He is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. He wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Mr. Leal sought services through the Long-Term Care Waiver and was placed on the
4

waitlist in 2016. 11. JEFFERSON LANGLAISE is 50-years-old. He lives in an assisted
living home in Miami-Dade County, Florida. He is a person with a disability under the ADA. He is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. He wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Mr. Langlaise sought services through the Long-Term Care Waiver in 2017 and was placed on the waitlist in 2018.
12. CELIA LOPEZ is 82-years-old. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 17(c)(2), she sues through her next friend, Javier Lopez. She lives in Miami-Dade County, Florida with her granddaughter, her granddaughter’s husband and three great-grandchildren. She is a person with a disability under the ADA. She is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. She wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Ms. Lopez sought services through the Long-Term Care Waiver and was placed on the waitlist in November 2014.
13. GERARLDINE DAVENPORT is 90-years-old. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P 17(c)(2), she sues through her next friend, Barbara Roti. She lives in an assisted living home in St. Lucie County, Florida. She is a person with a disability under the ADA. She is eligible for the Long-Term Care Waiver. She
5

wishes to remain living in the community with appropriate home and community based services. Ms. Davenport sought services through the LongTerm Care Waiver and was placed on the waitlist in 2013.
DEFENDANTS 14. Defendant JUSTIN SENIOR is Secretary of Florida’s Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) and is sued in his official capacity. (This Defendant will be referenced by the agency, AHCA.) AHCA is the “single state agency” that operates and administers Florida’s Medicaid program, including Florida’s Long-Term Care Waiver, and is charged with developing legislative budgetary requests for the Medicaid program. See 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(5), § 20.42(3), Fla. Stat. (2018), § 216.023, Fla. Stat. (2018). Secretary Senior is responsible for the oversight, supervision, and control of AHCA and its divisions, and is ultimately responsible for ensuring that AHCA’s services for people with disabilities are provided in conformance with federal law. 15. Defendant JEFFREY BRAGG is Secretary of Florida’s Department of Elder Affairs (DOEA), and is sued in his official capacity. (This Defendant will be referenced by the agency, DOEA.) DOEA is the primary state agency responsible for administering human services programs for the elderly and developing policy recommendations for long-term care. § 430.03, Fla. Stat.
6

(2018). It recommends legislative budget requests for programs and services for the state’s elderly population. Id. Among other duties, DOEA prepares, submits to the Governor and the Legislature, and monitors implementation of a master plan for policies and programs in Florida that relate to aging. Id. § 430.04. DOEA funds a community care service system, the declared primary purpose of which is “the prevention of unnecessary institutionalization of functionally impaired elderly persons through the provision of communitybased core services.” Id. § 430.204. DOEA is also the agency responsible for maintaining the statewide waitlist for the Long-Term Care Waiver, including assessing each applicant’s priority status on that waitlist and making offers of enrollment to eligible individuals. Id. § 409.979.
16. At all times relevant to this Complaint, Defendants were public entities under the ADA. 42 U.S.C. § 12132.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 17. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and (b)(2), the Named Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and all other persons similarly situated. 18. The proposed class consists of:
Adult residents of Florida who are at risk of unnecessary institutionalization without home and community based longterm care services because they: (1) are residing, and wish to
7

remain, at home or in a community residential setting; (2) qualify or would qualify if allowed to enroll in the Long-Term Care Waiver; and (3) have been placed on the Long-Term Care Waiver waitlist. 19. Numerosity: The proposed class is so numerous that joinder of all its members is impracticable. According to the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, as of August 2018, there were more than 50,000 people on a waitlist for home and community based services through the Long-Term Care Waiver. 20. Commonality: The questions of law or fact that are common to the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members include: a. Whether Defendants’ failure to provide needed home and community based services to the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members violates the ADA. b. Whether the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members can access appropriate long-term care services outside of entry to a nursing facility. c. Whether Defendants’ Medicaid funded long-term care system favors institutional services to the detriment of the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members seeking home and community based services. 21. Typicality: The claims of the Named Plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class as a whole in that the Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members
8

are all qualified individuals with disabilities who wish to remain in the community, but who are without Medicaid long-term care services and are at risk of unnecessary institutionalization.
22. Adequate representation: The Named Plaintiffs will fairly represent and adequately protect the interests of the proposed class as a whole. The Named Plaintiffs do not have any interests antagonistic to those of other proposed class members. By filing this action, the Named Plaintiffs have displayed an interest in vindicating their rights, as well as the claims of others who are similarly situated. The relief sought by the Named Plaintiffs will inure to the benefit of members of the proposed class generally. The Named Plaintiffs are represented by counsel who are skilled and knowledgeable about civil rights litigation, disability discrimination, Medicaid law, practice and procedure in the federal courts, and the prosecution and management of class action litigation.
23. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the proposed class, thereby making final injunctive relief appropriate with respect to the proposed class as a whole under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2). Although the specific disabilities of the proposed class members can vary, they share a common need for Medicaid funded home and community based services. A class action is superior to individual lawsuits for resolving this
9

controversy.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS Statewide Medicaid Managed Care Long-Term Care Program 24. Medicaid is a joint federal and state program that covers medical services to low-income persons pursuant to Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396-1396v. 25. States are not required to participate in Medicaid, but if they do, they must comply with the requirements of Title XIX and its implementing regulations promulgated by the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. States which participate must submit to the federal government a state Medicaid plan that fulfills the requirements of Title XIX. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a). 26. One of the primary purposes of Medicaid is “to furnish … rehabilitation and other services to help such families and individuals attain or retain capability for independence or self-care ….” 42 U.S.C. § 1396-1. Each participating state’s Medicaid plan must contain reasonable standards to determine the extent of services needed to obtain these objectives. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(17). 27. Coverage of certain services is mandatory under Title XIX, including
10

nursing facility services. 42 U.S.C. § 1396a(a)(10)(A)(i) (incorporating 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(1)-(5), (17), (21)).
28. Federal Medicaid law allows states to include certain home and community based services in their state Medicaid program plans, including personal care services. Such services are provided to all qualifying persons, without enrollment limits. 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(xvii)(24). Florida has opted not to provide these services to older adults or adults with disabilities.
29. In addition, Federal Medicaid law allows states to offer home and community based waiver programs (Waiver Programs). These Waiver Programs are designed to enable people who are elderly or have disabilities, and otherwise need the level of care provided in a nursing facility or other institution, to receive long-term care services in the community. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c). The federal Medicaid program allows states to obtain waivers of certain program requirements, including the requirement that otherwise prohibits enrollment caps. 42 U.S.C. § 1396n(c)(3).
30. The purpose of waivers, like Florida’s Long-Term Care Waiver, is to provide “an array of home and community-based services that an individual needs to avoid institutionalization.” 42 C.F.R. § 441.300.
31. When providing long-term care services, State Medicaid programs
11

must comply with the ADA. The ADA prohibits unnecessary institutionalization or segregation of persons with disabilities. 42 U.S.C. § 12132. A state’s obligations under the ADA are distinct from its obligations under the Medicaid Act.
32. Florida’s Medicaid program provides only a few options for adults who are disabled or elderly and need long-term care services: nursing facility placement, or home and community based services under the Long-Term Care Waiver. In addition, six counties operate limited facility based long-term care day services under the Program of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly.
33. Nursing facilities are institutional settings under the ADA. 34. On average, the cost of nursing facility placement is several times the cost of care provided in the home and community through the Long-Term Care Waiver. 35. The Long-Term Care Waiver provides home and community based services in various residential settings, including assisted living homes, adult family care homes, and in an individual’s own home or family member’s home. 36. The Long-Term Care Waiver covers a wide range of services critical to maintaining people with long-term care needs in their homes and in the community. These services include assisted living care, adult day health care,
12

assistive care services, attendant nursing care, behavioral management, care coordination, home accessibility adaptation, home delivery of meals, homemaker services, hospice, nursing, medical equipment and supplies, medication administration and management, personal care services, personal emergency response system, respite, skilled therapies and non-emergency transportation.
37. In December 2017, the federal Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) approved Defendant ACHA’s application for the current LongTerm Care Waiver program, authorizing it to continue for another five years.
38. In the waiver application, Defendant AHCA requested to limit the number of people getting services to 62,000 at any point in time, with no increase in capacity over the five years of the approval period.
39. States can obtain CMS approval to raise a waiver program’s enrollment cap to respond to increased demand. Some states do not cap enrollment in their long-term care waiver program at all.
40. As of October 2018, there were 59,329 persons receiving home and community based services through the Long-Term Care Waiver.
41. The Long-Term Care Waiver has absorbed seven other waiver programs that had been targeted to meet the needs of discrete populations. The
13

most recent consolidation in 2018 decommissioned three waiver programs dedicated to meeting the needs of people with HIV, traumatic brain or spinal cord injuries, and Cystic Fibrosis — a total of 7,500 slots. Of this number, a little over 1,700 people previously served were transitioned onto the Long-Term Care Waiver.
42. The transition of people from the decommissioned waivers to the LongTerm Care Waiver has increased the number of people served on the LongTerm Care Waiver but has reduced the capacity of the system as a whole. People newly seeking services that had been covered by the decommissioned waivers now must join the lengthy waitlist for the Long-Term Care Waiver.
43. As of October 2018, there were 53,193 persons on Defendants’ waitlist for the Long-Term Care Waiver.
44. The Long-Term Care Waiver is considered an Aged and Disabled waiver by CMS. According to Kaiser Family Foundation data, 31 states had no waiting list at all for their Aged, Physically Disabled or Aged and Disabled waivers (per 2016 data).
45. The federal Medicaid Act does not allow waitlists for nursing facility services.
46. Nursing facility occupancy rates in Florida are among the highest in the
14

country. Defendants’ Waitlist Ranking Underestimates the Risk of Unnecessary Nursing Facility Placement
47. When Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members seek to enroll in the Long-Term Care Waiver, they go through Defendants’ assessment process to purportedly determine their level of risk of nursing facility placement.
48. Defendant DOEA contracts with the regional Aging and Disability Resource Centers (ADRCs) to field requests and complete an assessment over the telephone.
49. Once assessed, individuals are placed on the waitlist for Long-Term Care Waiver services, called the Assessed Prioritized Consumer List. Completion of the assessment results in each individual being placed by numerical rank into one of five “priority levels” (levels 1-5): the higher the level, the higher the assessed risk. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-4.193(3).
50. There are additional levels of risk (levels 6-8) that DOEA ranks based on specific statutory characteristics. In October 2018, there were only 45 people on the Long-Term Care Waiver waitlist in levels 6-8.
51. In addition, individuals in three statutory categories are authorized to apply directly for the Long-Term Care Waiver, without any additional
15

assessment of risk: individuals residing in a nursing facility for at least 60 days who have requested to transition to their communities; children aged 18, 19 or 20 with medically complex care needs; and persons classified by Adult Protective Services as “high risk” and placed by the State in an assisted living facility. § 409.979 (3)(f), Fla. Stat. (2018).
52. Other than these three special statutory categories, Defendants’ assessment of risk governs when a person may move off of the waitlist.
53. Levels 0-5 are based exclusively on the results of an assessment conducted over the telephone. This assessment process asks applicants a series of questions from the 701S assessment tool. Responses to certain questions are then run through an algorithm, which determines the individual’s “score” and priority level. Fla. Admin. Code R. 59G-4.193(3).
54. Certain important risk factors are not considered when assigning a priority level. These include: whether the survey was completed by someone else (i.e., a proxy), memory loss, cognitive decline or dementia, the presence of Parkinson’s Disease, full paralysis, previous nursing facility stay, the age of the caregiver, financial strain on the caregiver, and history of falls. While some of these factors are captured in the assessment, the algorithm does not consider them in assigning a risk score.
16

55. The assessment process relies heavily on voluntary caregiver involvement but does not properly take into account a caregiver’s availability, ability, and willingness to provide support.
56. The vast majority of people on the waitlist are over 60-years-old, and more than half of them are over 74-years-old. A quarter of the waitlist is comprised of people 85 or older.
57. Many people with dementia are on the wait list and are in need of services. 42% of people at Level 3 have dementia or a cognitive impairment; at Level 4 that number rises to 51%, and at Level 5 it is 57%. But the assessment process does not adequately factor in dementia or cognitive impairment. The assessment asks about medical validation of cognitive decline, but those questions have no impact on the individual’s score or priority ranking on the waitlist.
58. One in four caregivers of individuals at Level 3 priority have been found by Defendant DOEA to be “in crisis,” and at Level 4 that number rises to more than half. Nonetheless, people assessed at these levels wait years on average to get needed long-term care.
59. Defendants’ criteria and methods of administration perpetuate the institutionalization and segregation of people with disabilities by
17

underestimating their risk of institutionalization and failing to administer the long-term care system based on accurate assessments of need for long-term care services in the community.
Defendants Do Not Move People Off of the Long-Term Care Waiver Waitlist at a Reasonable Pace
60. Average wait times are long. People with a Level 1 assessment wait on average 42 months. Other average wait times are 43 months for Level 2, 40 months for Level 3, and 30 months for Level 4.
61. Only people at the highest level of assessed risk, Level 5, move off of the waitlist within 3 months. To achieve a Level 5 score, the person must demonstrate a high level of need for long-term care, have highly inadequate unpaid support, and have a caregiver in crisis.
62. Between July 1, 2016, and March 8, 2018, over 1,400 people on the waitlist had to move to nursing facilities. In this same period, over 8,600 people died while on the waitlist.
63. The Long-Term Care Waiver waitlist continues to grow. In March 2017, the waitlist had 42,195 people on it. As of October 2018, there were over 53,000 people on the waitlist – an increase of over 20%.
64. As the waitlist increases, the number of people at risk of unnecessary
18

institutionalization grows as well. 65. Florida has no comprehensive, effectively working plan (called an
“Olmstead Plan”) for providing long-term care to proposed class members so they can remain in the most integrated setting in the community, rather than being forced into segregated, institutional settings by virtue of their care needs.
Defendants Overly Rely on Nursing Facility Settings 66. The ADA requires that states administer their “services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d). This requirement applies to state Medicaid programs. 67. Despite their obligations to provide individuals with disabilities services in the most integrated setting appropriate to their needs, Defendants have allocated the vast majority of Florida’s Medicaid long-term care resources to nursing facility services. 68. Florida ranks near the bottom in the nation in terms of Medicaid expenditures for home and community based services for older adults and adults with disabilities. Only 22.5% of Medicaid expenditures for long-term care for this population were for home and community based care in 2016. This was less than half the national average of 45.2%.
19

69. In 2016, Defendant AHCA’s Medicaid program spent four times as much on nursing facility care as it did on home and community based long-term care for this population.
70. In addition, Florida has become further entrenched in its commitment to institutions by lifting the moratorium for new certificates of need to allow for the building of new nursing facility beds. Defendant AHCA has approved thousands of new nursing facility beds since the moratorium was lifted in 2015.
71. Defendant AHCA has an incentive program within the long-term care system that provides fiscal rewards to managed care entities who transition people out of nursing facilities and into the Long-Term Care Waiver. There is no similar incentive program to bring people into the Long-Term Care Waiver from the waitlist. The result is an incentive to move into a nursing facility: a person seeking services at home or in the community can bypass the long waitlist only by first submitting to at least 60 consecutive days of institutionalization in a nursing facility.
72. Transitioning out of a nursing facility placement is difficult for lowincome people. Once Medicaid-eligible individuals are admitted to nursing facilities, they must turn over most of their income, including Social Security benefits, to the state and nursing facility, except for a small monthly personal
20

needs allowance. 73. As a result, nursing facility residents are often unable to continue
paying rent or mortgages and accordingly may lose the home they had before entering the nursing facility.
74. Defendants administer their Medicaid long-term care system in a discriminatory manner that perpetuates the institutionalization and segregation of persons with disabilities, over relies on nursing facility services and underfunding community based care, and fails to provide sufficient alternative Medicaid funded long-term care services in the community.
NAMED PLAINTIFFS’ ALLEGATIONS Benjamin Alexander
75. Mr. Alexander is a Medicaid beneficiary who requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in early 2018, but was placed on the waitlist.
76. Mr. Alexander became disabled as a result of back surgery he had three years ago that left him paralyzed. At first quadriplegic, Mr. Alexander was able to regain most movement in his upper body. However, his left hand does not open completely. He is paralyzed from the waist down, has uncontrolled muscle spasms, abdominal pain, severe constipation, and is incontinent.
77. Mr. Alexander has been treated in a hospital approximately ten times
21

in the past year due to his ongoing muscle spasms, abdominal pain, and constipation.
78. Mr. Alexander lives with his 92-year-old mother in her home and relies on her and a former neighbor to help him. He cannot bathe, maintain hygiene, or perform incontinence care without assistance. He cannot keep his home clean and safe without help. Neither Mr. Alexander nor his mother are licensed to drive and they must rely on others to help with shopping. They also rely on the Meal on Wheels program, which comes once per day.
79. Mr. Alexander’s mother is elderly with her own physical health problems including unsteadiness. She has great difficulty meeting her son’s physical care needs. When his legs seize up on him, she cannot assist him in getting dressed or attend to his incontinence. When he needs to move to his wheelchair, she struggles to lift him and help him transfer. She is not confident she has the ability to provide the care he needs.
80. The home Mr. Alexander lives in is not accessible to him. There is no shower that he can maneuver into and his mother cannot lift him into the tub, so she gives him a sponge bath in his chair or on his bed. Mr. Alexander rotates himself every two hours with great difficulty because he does not have a bed or mattress that will adjust and assist with the prevention of skin breakdown.
22

81. Defendants recently assessed Mr. Alexander and ranked him at Level 3 on the waitlist.
82. Defendants’ ranking failed to take into account his elderly mother’s difficulty in lifting and maneuvering him to provide personal care. When his mother is unable to provide care, he must rely on the kindness of a former neighbor who travels to his home to provide the care for him. His ranking also did not weigh the financial strain on his caregiver, his numerous emergency room visits in the last year, or the total number of activities of daily living where he needs assistance.
83. Mr. Alexander wants to remain living with his mother, but he is at risk of unnecessary nursing facility entry. He cannot independently care for himself and his 92-year-old mother cannot do so either, which leaves Mr. Alexander further dependent upon the uncertainty of his former neighbor’s willingness to assist with his care needs. Without his mother and his former neighbor’s help, he would have to enter a nursing facility.
George Collier 86. Mr. Collier requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in 2015, but was placed on the waitlist. He currently lives in an assisted living home. 87. Mr. Collier has numerous health conditions including dementia,
23

diabetes, and blindness. He cannot take medications by himself, and his diabetes has been uncontrolled at times. He was found unresponsive on the floor in the last year. He cannot use the telephone, shop and prepare meals, manage money or his medications, or go out into the community without assistance. He uses a walker to ambulate.
88. Mr. Collier is happy in his assisted living home, where he sings karaoke and enjoys dancing. He likes to go to the grocery store to buy his food, but needs total assistance. His daughter-in-law says that putting him in a nursing facility, “would be like putting him in a coffin.”
89. Mr. Collier’s assisted living home helps him with medication management and meal preparation including preparing his plate and cutting his food due to Mr. Collier’s blindness. He also needs but is not receiving standby assistance with showering due to his unsteadiness, and assistance with dressing.
90. He is frequently dizzy and has had numerous falls in the last year, six of them requiring ambulance services. Most recently, Mr. Collier went to the emergency room for dementia and undiagnosed weakness.
91. Mr. Collier has unmet care needs because he does not have the money to cover the cost of needed services. These unmet needs place him at increased
24

risk of falls and wounds or infections. For example, his unsteadiness in the shower leaves him at risk of more falls and hospitalizations. He needs close monitoring of his blood glucoses to prevent further dizziness and falls.
92. Defendants assessed and ranked Mr. Collier at Level 3 on the waitlist. 93. The Defendants’ ranking does not take into consideration the financial strain on Mr. Collier’s son. Though he continues to strive to pay the difference for Mr. Collier’s assisted living facility, he also continues to pay additional health care costs for Mr. Collier such as dental care when Mr. Collier broke a tooth due to one of his falls. In addition, his ranking did not take into account his dementia or his history of falls. 94. Mr. Collier is at risk of unnecessary nursing facility entry. Mr. Collier wants to remain in his home, so his son has been paying the difference between Mr. Collier’s limited income and the cost of care and rent. His son cannot sustain the $1,900 cost per month. Without the services provided at his assisted living home, Mr. Collier would have to enter a nursing facility.
Raimundo Leal 95. Raimundo Leal requested Long-Term Care Waiver Services in 2011 but was placed on the waitlist. 96. Mr. Leal resides in a subsidized apartment and relies on occasional
25

assistance from neighbors or self-paid care for homemaking and other chores. If his apartment is not maintained, he risks being in violation of his lease and evicted.
97. Mr. Leal is engaged with his family and community. His brother comes to visit him each week, and his son and grandchildren provide companionship and help him to go to the grocery store.
98. Mr. Leal has insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and is subject to falls. He also has rheumatoid arthritis. His memory is sometimes poor.
99. Mr. Leal cannot bathe and dress himself without assistance, and sometimes he cannot ambulate without help. He has difficulty managing his medications.
100. Mr. Leal has had several hospitalizations due to falls and has recently progressed from just using oxygen to now having a tracheostomy.
101. Mr. Leal first requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in July 2011, where Defendants ranked him at Level 3. He was placed on the wait list.
102. Since his initial request, Mr. Leal has been assessed numerous times. In June 2017, Mr. Leal’s health deteriorated and he requested a reassessment. Defendants ranked him at Level 4. The assessment noted that he is a frequent
26

fall risk. He needs daily help, but he rarely has assistance. Different friends from his community will pitch in or help when they can. He remained on the waitlist.
103. In October of 2017, Mr. Leal needed more help at home and was reassessed again. Defendants ranked him at Level 3, although he still was a fall risk and needed assistance. He remained on the waitlist. Mr. Leal was last reassessed in May of 2018 and is now ranked Level 2.
104. Mr. Leal falls frequently, often due to respiratory distress and resulting in multiple hospitalizations. He usually does not recall the events leading up to his falls and, without regular assistance in his home, has been lucky to have been found by neighbors or family. Mr. Leal was recently hospitalized again in August 2018, and required a tracheostomy to address oxygen deficiency. He was later admitted to a subacute care hospital for continued care and has remained there with a discharge order for a skilled nursing facility since September 2018.
105. Mr. Leal, however, does not want to be admitted to a skilled nursing facility and wishes to be discharged home with Long-Term Care Waiver Services. Discharge home without services or a caregiver in the home is against medical advice.
27

106. Mr. Leal is at risk of unnecessary nursing facility entry. He would be able to continue to live independently near his brother, children, and grandchildren with the assistance of the Long-Term Care Waiver services. Without those supports and services, Mr. Leal would have to enter a nursing facility.
Jefferson Langlaise 107. Jefferson Langlaise requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in 2017, but was placed on the waitlist. 108. Mr. Langlaise has a seizure disorder with generalized seizures that occur several times a week. He also has co-occurring mental health conditions, dizziness, high blood pressure and high cholesterol. He is unable to work due to his disabilities and needs assistance with walking, mobility, bathing, medication management, shopping, meal preparation and chores. 109. Mr. Langlaise lives in an assisted living home, but his income is not enough to pay the cost. His mother, his primary support, is paying the remainder of his rent and expenses. She is nearing retirement age, has another adult child with a disability at home, and cannot continue to sustain the cost of paying the difference. 110. Defendants assessed and ranked Mr. Langlaise at a Level 2 on the
28

waitlist. 111. Defendants’ ranking did not take into account the financial strain his
mother is under to sustain the care he receives from the assisted living home. 112. Mr. Langlaise is at risk of unnecessary nursing facility entry because
his Social Security income is not enough to cover the cost of his assisted living home. His mother is privately paying for the remainder of his rent, medications, incidental expenses, and transportation. His mother is unsure how she will continue to support Mr. Langlaise. She has limited years left to work herself plus cares for her older son with disabilities living with her. Without the care that she pays for, Mr. Lainglaise would need to enter a nursing facility.
Celia Lopez 86. Ms. Lopez requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in November 2014 but was placed on the waitlist 87. Ms. Lopez lives with her granddaughter and her granddaughter’s family. 88. Ms. Lopez cannot perform necessary incontinence care, bathe herself, dress herself or eat without assistance. She needs help with mobility and is at risk for serious injury from falls. She needs assistance to access the community around her, and would enjoy doing so.
29

89. Ms. Lopez’s family is committed to helping her live at home with them. However, she needs help all day, every day, particularly because of her advanced dementia. She cannot speak words anymore.
90. Ms. Lopez is helped each day and each night by caregivers paid for by her grandchildren. However, this arrangement is not sustainable financially. Moreover, because of the cost, Ms. Lopez does not have sufficient services to access the world outside of her granddaughter’s home.
91. Defendants recently assessed Ms. Lopez and ranked her a Level 1 on the waitlist.
92. The Defendants’ ranking does not reflect Ms. Lopez’s dementia and need for supervision to prevent wandering. Nor does the ranking take into consideration the financial strain the cost of her care puts on her grandchildren. They cannot sustain the continued cost and, without the care they pay for, Ms. Lopez would have to enter a nursing facility.
Geraldine Davenport 93. Ms. Davenport requested Long-Term Care Waiver services in March 2013 but was put on the waitlist. 94. At that time, Ms. Davenport was living with her daughter who sought services for her mother because her mother had dementia and did not have much
30

money 95. While waiting for services and living with her daughter, Ms.
Davenport was without a caretaker while her daughter was at work. Her confusion led to episodes of risky behavior, including taking all her medications at once, putting paper plates in the toaster oven, forgetting if she ate food, and eating multiple lunches.
96. In late December 2017, Ms. Davenport experienced severe back pain—she had fractured her eleventh vertebrae. Although she had a large bruise on her back, she did not remember falling. She was hospitalized and then released to a rehabilitation facility. She could not return home because her daughter worked during the day and there was no caretaker or services to provide the support Ms. Davenport required. After rehabilitation, Ms. Davenport moved to an assisted living home in January 2018.
97. Ms. Davenport meets the qualifications for the Long-Term Care Waiver. She needs assistance with bathing, transferring, as well as walking and mobility. She cannot manage her own money, prepare meals, shop, or do chores. She cannot use the telephone, manage her medications, and use transportation without assistance.
98. Ms. Davenport experiences bouts of depression and requires the
31

relaxed and quiet environment that she now has at her assisted living home. She has visited nursing facilities in the past and found the setting to be depressing.
99. In January 2018, the Defendants ranked Ms. Davenport at Level 2 on the waitlist.
100. Her risk assessment score did not take into consideration her dementia or memory loss, the fact that she was in a rehabilitation facility, or her history of falls.
101. Ms. Davenport wants to remain in the community. She is at risk of unnecessary nursing facility entry because she cannot afford the cost of the assisted living home where she lives. Without the services provided by the assisted living home, Ms. Davenport would have to enter a nursing facility.
CLAIM FOR RELIEF AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT 102. Paragraphs 1 through 101 are incorporated by reference. 103. Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act provides that, “no qualified individual with a disability shall, by reason of disability, be excluded from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or activities of a public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such
32

entity.” 42 U.S.C. § 12132. 104. Each Named Plaintiff and proposed class member is a “qualified
individual with a disability” within the meaning of the ADA in that they: (1) have a physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; and (2) meet the essential eligibility requirements for long-term care under Florida’s Medicaid program.
105. Defendants are public agency directors responsible for operation of a public entity, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131(1)(A) & (B).
106. Title II of the ADA requires that public entities “administer services, programs, and activities in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of qualified individuals with disabilities.” See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(d).
107. Defendants violate the integration mandate of the ADA by failing to provide needed home and community based services to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members, placing them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization or segregation.
108. The ADA further prohibits a state from utilizing, “criteria or other methods of administration [t]hat have the effect of subjecting qualified individuals with disabilities to discrimination on the basis of disability.” See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(3)(i). This includes methods of administration that,
33

“have the purpose or effect of defeating or substantially impairing accomplishment of objectives of the public entity’s program with respect to individuals with disabilities.” Id. § 35.130(b)(3)(ii).
109. Defendants’ criteria and methods of administering the Long-Term Care Waiver subject Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members to discrimination by: (1) using a system of assessment and prioritization that underestimates risk of institutionalization and places individuals at risk of unnecessary institutionalization; and (2) funding Medicaid Long-Term Care services with a bias toward institutional care.
110. Defendants’ unlawful discrimination against Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members violates Title II of the ADA.
REQUEST FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members respectfully request that this Court:
a. Certify this action as a class action and appoint individual Named Plaintiffs as class representatives;
34

b. Declare that Defendants’ failure to provide Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members with needed home and community based services violates Title II of the ADA;
c. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendants to comply with the ADA, to include at a minimum:
i. the provision of Medicaid-funded home and community based services required by Named Plaintiffs and the proposed class members to avoid or prevent unnecessary institutionalization and to avoid segregation; ii. notification to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class members of the availability of home and communitybased alternatives to nursing facility or other institutional care and how to access those alternatives; and iii. development of a valid and reliable assessment tool for risk of nursing facility. d. Require Defendants to publicly report on a quarterly basis on the progress of compliance;
35

e. Retain jurisdiction over this case until Defendants have come into
compliance with the ADA as applied to Named Plaintiffs and proposed class
members;
f. Award Plaintiffs their reasonable attorneys’ fees, litigation
expenses, and costs; and
g. Grant such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Dated: December 12, 2018 Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Amanda Heystek AMANDA HEYSTEK, Fla. Bar No. 285020 amandah@disabilityrightsflorida.org Disability Rights Florida 1000 N. Ashley Dr. Ste. 640 Tampa, FL 33602 (850) 488-9071
JODI SIEGEL, Fla. Bar No. 511617 jodi.siegel@southernlegal.org Southern Legal Counsel, Inc. 1229 NW 12th Avenue Gainesville, FL 32601 (352) 271-8890
NANCY E. WRIGHT, Fla. Bar No. 309419 newright.law@gmail.com Law Office of Nancy E. Wright 3231 NW 47th Place Gainesville, FL 32605
36

(352) 871-8255
REGAN BAILEY, pro hac vice pending rbailey@justiceinaging.org CAROL A. WONG, pro hac vice pending cwong@justiceinaging.org JUSTICE IN AGING 1444 Eye Street, NW Suite 1100 Washington, D.C. 20005 (202) 683-1990
ERIC CARLSON, pro hac vice pending ecarlson@justiceinaging.org JUSTICE IN AGING 3660 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 718 Los Angeles, CA 90010 (213) 674-2813
JOHN J. SULLIVAN, pro hac vice pending jsullivan@cozen.com DAVID H. REICHENBERG, pro hac vice pending dreichenberg@cozen.com COZEN O’CONNOR 45 Broadway Suite 1600 New York, NY 10006 (212) 453-3729
ASHLEY GOMEZ-RODON, Fla. Bar No. 1010237 agomez-rodon@cozen.com COZEN O’CONNOR 200 South Biscayne Boulevard, Suite 3000 Miami, FL 33131 (786) 871-3996
ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
37

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
___N__o_rt_h_e_rn_ DDiissttrriicctt ooff F__lo_r_id_a_____

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER by his

)

next friend, Timothy Collier, RAIMUNDO LEAL,

)

JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, CELIA LOPEZ by her

)

next friend, Javier Lopez, and GERALDINE DAVENPORT by her next friend, Barbara Roti
Plaintiff(s)

) )

v.

) )

Civil Action No.

JUSTIN SENIOR, in his official capacity as Secretary,

)

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and JEFFREY BRAGG, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary, Florida Department of Elder Affairs

)

)

Defendant(s)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To:

(Defendant’s

name

and

address)

JUSTIN SENIOR, Agency for Health

Secretary Care Administration

2727 Mahan Drive

Tallahassee, FL 32308

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Amanda Heystek, Disability Rights Florida, 1000 N. Ashley Drive Ste. 640, Tampa FL
33602; and Jodi Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, 1229 NW 12th Avenue, Gainesville FL 32601

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the
___N__o_rt_h_e_rn_ DDiissttrriicctt ooff F__lo_r_id_a_____

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER, GEORGE COLLIER by his

)

next friend, Timothy Collier, RAIMUNDO LEAL,

)

JEFFERSON LANGLAISE, CELIA LOPEZ by her

)

next friend, Javier Lopez, and GERALDINE DAVENPORT by her next friend, Barbara Roti
Plaintiff(s)

) )

v.

) )

Civil Action No.

JUSTIN SENIOR, in his official capacity as Secretary,

)

Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, and JEFFREY BRAGG, in his official capacity as

)

Secretary, Florida Department of Elder Affairs

)

)

Defendant(s)

)

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION

To:

(Defendant’s

name

and

address)

JEFFREY BRAGG, Secretary Department of Elder Affairs

4040 Esplanade Way

Tallahassee, FL 32399

A lawsuit has been filed against you.
Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) — or 60 days if you are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) — you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiff’s attorney, whose name and address are: Amanda Heystek, Disability Rights Florida, 1000 N. Ashley Drive Ste. 640, Tampa FL
33602; and Jodi Siegel, Southern Legal Counsel, 1229 NW 12th Avenue, Gainesville FL 32601

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint. You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

Date:

CLERK OF COURT
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)
Civil Action No.

PROOF OF SERVICE (This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))

This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)

was received by me on (date)

.

’ I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)

on (date)

; or

’ I left the summons at the individual’s residence or usual place of abode with (name)

, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,

on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individual’s last known address; or

’ I served the summons on (name of individual) designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

, who is ; or

’ I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

’ Other (specify): .

My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

0.00

.

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:

Server’s signature Printed name and title

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

Server’s address

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 80 Filed 10/27/19 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MARY MAYHEW et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

ORDER DENYING CLASS CERTIFICATION

The plaintiffs in this proposed class action are adults with physical disabilities or limitations. They need services that could be provided in a longterm-care facility—a nursing home—but they live and prefer to continue to live in the community. They allege they are eligible for home and community-based services through the State of Florida’s Medicaid long-term-care waiver program. But they are on the program’s waitlist; they are not currently receiving waiver services. The plaintiffs say this puts them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization, violating the state’s duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as interpreted in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), to provide needed services in the community, when this can be done without
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 80 Filed 10/27/19 Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
fundamentally altering a state’s programs. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the Secretaries of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, the agencies that administer the waiver program.
The plaintiffs have moved to certify a class consisting of adult residents of Florida who live in the community, are eligible for long-term-care waiver services, and are on the waitlist. This order denies the motion.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. The party who moves to certify a class has the burden of establishing that the Rule 23 criteria are met. See, e.g., Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2009). The Rule 23(a) criteria are commonly referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.” Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 2003)). The criteria were applied in a Florida Medicaid waiver case in Long v. Benson, 4:08cv26-RH/WCS (Oct. 14, 2008).
The plaintiffs’ motion has a fatal flaw that permeates several of the 23(a) criteria, making it unnecessary to go further in the analysis.
There is an irreconcilable conflict within the class. The waitlist does not operate on the principle of first-come-first-served. Instead, the State applies a
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 80 Filed 10/27/19 Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
methodology intended to move the most critical cases to the front of the line. One of the named plaintiffs’ claims is that the methodology is flawed—that some individuals, including the named plaintiffs, are farther down the list than they should be.
Ranking is a zero-sum game. If the named plaintiffs move up, someone else must move down. The ones who would move down cannot adequately be represented by the named plaintiffs. The named plaintiffs’ claims are not typical of the claims of those who would move down. And this, together with other analysis, calls into question numerosity; there are more than 54,000 individuals on the waitlist, but the record does not show how many would benefit from the named plaintiffs’ proposed changes to the ranking methodology, how many are at risk of institutionalization, or even how many are eligible for waiver services. See, e.g., Vega, 564 F.3d at 1267-68 (holding that numerosity cannot be established by unsupported assumptions).
IT IS ORDERED: The class-certification motion, ECF No. 28, is denied. SO ORDERED on October 27, 2019.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 130 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 4
Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MARY MAYHEW et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS’ FIRST MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT

The plaintiffs are adults with physical disabilities or limitations. They need services that could be provided in a long-term-care facility—a nursing home—but they live and prefer to continue to live in the community. They allege they are eligible for home and community-based services through the State of Florida’s Medicaid long-term-care waiver program. But they are on the program’s waitlist; they are not currently receiving waiver services.
The plaintiffs say this puts them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization, violating the state’s duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as interpreted in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999). That decision requires a

Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 130 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 4
Page 2 of 4
state to provide needed services in the community, not in a nursing home, when this can be done without fundamentally altering a state’s programs.
The defendants are the Secretaries of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, the agencies that administer the waiver program.
The state’s long-term-care waiver program is capped at 62,000 participants. The Medicaid Act explicitly authorizes such a cap. See 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396n(c)(3)(4), (9)-(10), 1396n(d)(3); 42 C.F.R. § 441.303(f)(6). The defendants have moved for partial summary judgment, asserting that the Medicaid Act’s approval of caps trumps the ADA’s requirement to provide services in the community.
The plaintiffs assert, with the support of the United States as amicus curiae, that the ADA and the Medicaid Act impose separate requirements and are both valid. Quite so. The ADA requires a state to provide reasonable accommodations for disabilities, including as necessary to avoid unnecessary institutionalization. But as Olmstead recognized, there is an exception: the ADA does not require such an accommodation if it would fundamentally alter a state’s programs. See 28 C.F.R. § 35.130(b)(7)(i) (“A public entity shall make reasonable modifications in policies, practices, or procedures when the modifications are necessary to avoid discrimination on the basis of disability, unless the public entity can demonstrate
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 130 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 4
Page 3 of 4
that making the modifications would fundamentally alter the nature of the service, program, or activity.”).
A state request for approval to increase the cap would likely garner federal approval and would constitute a reasonable accommodation of the plaintiffs’ disabilities. But at least in the circumstances of this case, an injunction requiring the state to serve additional individuals through the waiver—to obtain an increase in or to exceed the cap—would fundamentally alter the state’s program. This is so as a matter of law. The same is true of an order requiring the state to establish a new program outside the Medicaid system. See Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581, 603 n.14 (1999). Or to provide a service outside the Medicaid system that the state now provides only within the Medicaid system. Such fundamental alterations cannot properly be compelled.
Even so, this does not entitle the defendants to summary judgment across the board. The record does not exclude the possibility that the plaintiffs will be entitled to relief that can be provided under the waiver without exceeding the cap. And the record does not exclude the possibility that the plaintiffs will be entitled to relief through existing programs the state operates outside the Medicaid system. The bottom line: the state will be required to provide a service to a plaintiff who needs it to avoid institutionalization only if the state can do so without exceeding the waiver cap or through another existing program.
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 130 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 4
Page 4 of 4
For these reasons and those set out on the record of the summary-judgment hearing on March 27, 2020,
IT IS ORDERED: The defendants’ first motion for partial summary judgment, ECF No. 72, is granted. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). SO ORDERED on March 31, 2020.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 132 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 5
Page 1 of 5
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MARY MAYHEW et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

ORDER DENYING THE SECOND MOTION TO CERTIFY A CLASS

The plaintiffs in this proposed class action are adults with physical disabilities or limitations. They need services that could be provided in a longterm-care facility—a nursing home—but they live and prefer to continue to live in the community. They allege they are eligible for home and community-based services through the State of Florida’s Medicaid long-term-care waiver program. But they are on the program’s waitlist; they are not currently receiving waiver services.
The plaintiffs say this puts them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization, violating the state’s duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as interpreted

Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 132 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 5
Page 2 of 5
in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999), to provide needed services in the community, when this can be done without fundamentally altering a state’s programs. The plaintiffs seek injunctive relief against the Secretaries of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, the agencies that administer the waiver program.
The plaintiffs filed a timely motion to certify a class. The order of October 27, 2019 denied the motion. At that time, the plaintiffs’ claim was that the state had improperly ranked individuals—that is, proposed class members—on the wait list. Ranking is a zero-sum game. If, as the plaintiffs asserted, an injunction was in order to require the state to change the ranking system, some proposed class members would move up, but others would move down. There was an irreconcilable conflict within the proposed class.
On February 10, 2020—nearly a year after the deadline for a classcertification motion—the plaintiffs filed a second motion to certify a class. By then the plaintiffs had completely changed their theory of the case. Indeed, attempting to discern and track the plaintiffs’ shifting theories has been an effort to nail jello to a wall. At a motion hearing on March 27, 2020, the plaintiffs were still unable to propose terms of an injunction complying with the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d)(1)(C) requirement to “describe in reasonable detail” the “act or acts restrained or required.”
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 132 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 5
Page 3 of 5
This order denies the second motion to certify a class for two reasons. First, the motion is untimely. Fact discovery already has ended. The expert discovery deadline is approaching. The deadline to move for summary judgment is approaching. Allowing a completely reconstituted proposed class at this late date, so that the class could pursue a new theory, would prejudice the defendants. Second, the motion fails on the merits. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 governs class certification. The party who moves to certify a class has the burden of establishing that the Rule 23 criteria are met. See, e.g., Vega v. T-Mobile USA, Inc., 564 F.3d 1256, 1265 (11th Cir. 2009). The Rule 23(a) criteria, each of which must be satisfied, are commonly referred to as “numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation.” Babineau v. Fed. Express Corp., 576 F.3d 1183, 1190 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Valley Drug Co. v. Geneva Pharm., Inc., 350 F.3d 1181, 1187-88 (11th Cir. 2003)). In addition to the Rule 23(a) criteria, a party must satisfy at least one Rule 23(b) criterion; the one at issue here is that a defendant “has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting the class as a whole.” These criteria were applied in a Florida Medicaid waiver case in Long v. Benson, No. 4:08cv26-RH/WCS, 2008 WL 4571904 (N.D. Fla. Oct. 14, 2008).
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 132 Filed 03/31/20 Page 4 of 5
Page 4 of 5
Without a clearer articulation of the plaintiffs’ claim and proposed relief— without knowing what an injunction would require if the proposed class claim succeeded—it is impossible to conclude that the plaintiffs have met the 23(a) or 23(b) prerequisites to class certification. As set out in a separate order that will be issued contemporaneously with this order, the plaintiffs are not entitled to an injunction requiring the defendants to obtain an increase in or to exceed the cap on the state’s Medicaid long-term waiver program.
The plaintiffs may assert—whether this part of the jello that will stick is unclear—that there is room under the cap. But even if such a claim goes forward, the record does not show how much room exists under the cap or how many proposed class members might fit. Even if enough might fit to satisfy the numerosity criterion, there would be an irreconcilable conflict among proposed class members vying for a slot.
The plaintiffs also may assert—more jello—that the plaintiffs will be entitled to relief through existing programs the state operates outside the Medicaid system. But the record does not show which programs this might be or how many proposed class members might qualify. The record does not show, for any such unspecified program, whether injunctive relief might ultimately be appropriate respecting the class as a whole. Indeed, other than a fleeting reference during the
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 132 Filed 03/31/20 Page 5 of 5
Page 5 of 5
March 27 oral argument, it is not clear the plaintiffs have said they wish to receive services through any such program.
The bottom line: the plaintiffs’ second motion to certify a class is both untimely and substantively unfounded.
IT IS ORDERED: The plaintiffs’ second motion to certify a class, ECF No. 101, is denied. SO ORDERED on March 31, 2020.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

 
 Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 131 Filed 03/31/20 Page 1 of 3
Page 1 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BENJAMIN ALEXANDER et al., Plaintiffs,
v. MARY MAYHEW et al.,
Defendants. ______________________________/

CASE NO. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

ORDER GRANTING THE DEFENDANTS’ SECOND SUMMARY-JUDGMENT MOTION IN PART

The plaintiffs are adults with physical disabilities or limitations. They need services that could be provided in a long-term-care facility—a nursing home—but they live and prefer to continue to live in the community. They allege they are eligible for home and community-based services through the State of Florida’s Medicaid long-term-care waiver program. But they are on the program’s waitlist; they are not currently receiving waiver services. The plaintiffs say this puts them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization, violating the state’s duty under the Americans with Disabilities Act, as interpreted in Olmstead v. L.C. ex rel. Zimring, 527 U.S. 581 (1999). That decision requires a state to provide needed services in

Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 131 Filed 03/31/20 Page 2 of 3
Page 2 of 3
the community, not in a nursing home, when this can be done without fundamentally altering a state’s programs. The defendants are the Secretaries of the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Elder Affairs, the agencies that administer the waiver program.
The plaintiffs have attempted to assert claims not only for themselves but for a proposed class. The order of October 27, 2019 denied the plaintiffs’ first motion to certify a class. This led the defendants to file a summary-judgment motion— their second—asserting the plaintiffs can recover only individual relief, not classwide relief. The plaintiffs filed a second motion to certify a class, but a separate order that will be issued contemporaneously with this one denies the second motion to certify a class. Only the plaintiffs’ individual claims will go forward.
The plaintiffs have standing to assert only their own claims and to obtain only appropriate relief on their own claims. This order makes no ruling on the scope of relief available on the plaintiffs’ own claims. But the defendants are correct: in the absence of a certified class, the plaintiffs have no standing to assert the rights of individuals whose only involvement in this case was as proposed class members. Whether labeled a motion for summary judgment or to dismiss, the result is the same: the plaintiffs cannot pursue a claim for relief on behalf of others. Accordingly,
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF

Case 4:18-cv-00569-RH-MJF Document 131 Filed 03/31/20 Page 3 of 3
Page 3 of 3
IT IS ORDERED: The defendants’ second summary-judgment motion, ECF No. 98, is granted in part. Any claims for relief on behalf of individuals who are not named plaintiffs are dismissed. I do not direct the entry of judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b). SO ORDERED on March 31, 2020.
s/Robert L. Hinkle United States District Judge
Case No. 4:18cv569-RH-MJF