UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------------X

BARBARA HARRIS, WILLIAM BROWN,

:

BARBARA MARROQUIN and MARIA OJEDA,

on behalf of themselves and all

:

others similarly situated,

:

Plaintiffs,

:

-against-

:

VERNA EGGLESTON, in her official capacity:

as the Commissioner of The City of New

:

York Human Resources Administration, and

BRIAN J. WING, in his official capacity as the :

Commissioner of the State of New York

Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance :

02 Civ. ______ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defendants.

:

---------------------------------------------------------------X

Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, through

their attorneys, complaining of the defendants, allege upon personal knowledge as to

themselves and their own acts. As to all other matters, they allege upon information

and belief based upon inter alia, the investigation made by and through their attorneys.

Additional information in support of the claims herein is within the exclusive possession,

knowledge and control of defendants.

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

1. Over the past ten years, the Human Resources Administration

(“HRA”) has wrongly terminated the food stamps of thousands of people with

disabilities. The Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (“OTDA”), the state

agency in charge of supervising HRA, has known of HRA’s practice and allowed it to

continue.

823538v2

2. Food stamps are a federal benefit, paid for by the federal government, intended to enable our country’s poorest, most needy citizens to buy enough food. When Congress created the food stamps program in 1969, it took special care to ensure that people with disabilities would receive adequate money for food. For example, many people who receive Supplemental Security Income (“SSI”), a federal benefit for extremely poor people who are too disabled to work, are automatically eligible to receive food stamps.
3. Many disabled individuals who receive public assistance ("PA") from the state in addition to food stamps often, at HRA’s behest, apply to the federal government for SSI benefits. Applying for SSI is an arduous, lengthy process, usually lasting years, but applying is worthwhile because SSI is a slightly higher and steadier source of income than PA. When PA recipients are approved for SSI, i.e. when they have proven to SSA that they are extremely poor and severely disabled, HRA should close their PA cases and stop PA payments but keep open their food stamps cases. HRA should then recalculate food stamps allotments in light of the new income from SSI. In most cases involving people moving from PA to SSI, HRA should continue or increase their food stamps payments.
4. In a substantial number of cases involving people moving from PA to SSI, HRA does not keep their food stamps cases open and fails to recalculate their food stamps allotments. Rather, HRA cuts off their food stamps without warning when HRA closes their PA cases, suddenly leaving many severely disabled people, some of whom suffer from conditions requiring special diets, such as diabetes, with no money for food. Some people who move from PA to SSI actually receive a notice stating that their
2
823538v2

food stamps will continue, only to discover at the grocery check-out that they have no money for food.
5. HRA’s practice and OTDA’s acquiescence have caused a substantial number of poor people with severe disabilities to go without food, placing their mental and physical health in jeopardy and hampering their efforts to become more self-sufficient.
6. HRA’s practice and OTDA’s acquiescence violate: 1) the Food Stamps Act (“FSA”), 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2020, and the United States Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) regulations implementing the FSA, 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.2(j)(2), 273.12(a)(1)(i), 273.2(k)(1)(a)(2), 273.12(c), 273.12(f)(3); 2) OTDA regulations implementing the FSA, 18 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Part 387; 3) the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.; 4) the due process clauses of the New York Constitution, N.Y. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 6, and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; 5) the equal protection clauses of the New York Constitution, N.Y. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 11, and of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and 6) Article XVII of the New York State Constitution.
7. As explained in greater detail below, plaintiffs ask the Court for an injunction requiring HRA and OTDA to: 1) stop automatically closing the food stamp cases of PA recipients with disabilities who are approved for SSI; 2) recalculate the food stamps allotments of welfare recipients who are approved for SSI without stopping or interrupting their food stamp payments, and provide notice of any changes; and 3) issue
3
823538v2

retroactive food stamps to all the people with disabilities whose food stamps HRA wrongly terminated or reduced.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE 8. This action is authorized by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, as an action seeking redress against local and state actors acting under color of law to deprive persons of their statutory and constitutional rights. 9. Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred upon the Court by: (1) 28 U.S.C. § 1331, which provides for jurisdiction in the district courts of civil actions arising under the Constitution, law, or treaties of the United States; and (2) 28 U.S.C. § 1343(a)(3), which provides for subject matter jurisdiction in the district courts of civil actions to redress deprivation of rights secured by the Constitution of the United States. 10. Supplemental jurisdiction of the state law claims which are related to and form part of the same case as that presented by the federal claims is authorized under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a). 11. Venue lies within this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1) and (2).
PARTIES The Plaintiffs 12. Plaintiff Barbara Harris resides as a single person in the County of Kings, City and State of New York. Ms. Harris suffers from bipolar disorder, panic disorder, chronic asthma and high blood pressure. 13. Before December 2000, Ms. Harris was on PA and was receiving around $122 in food stamps a month.
4
823538v2

14. In December 2000, SSA awarded her SSI because of her disabilities.
15. Prior to Ms. Harris receiving SSI, HRA regularly deposited Ms. Harris' food stamps allotment in an account she could access using a standard Electronic Benefits Transfer ("EBT") card provided to food stamps recipients. In March 2001, however, when she tried to buy groceries, she discovered that HRA had cut off her food stamps with no advance notice. Because HRA failed to separately determine her food stamps allotment and instead terminated food stamps, Ms. Harris requested an administrative hearing before an OTDA administrative judge ("ALJ") to challenge the termination.
16. On April 30, 2001, an ALJ issued a written decision ruling that HRA had cut off Ms. Harris' food stamps without adequate notice and directing HRA to restore, retroactively, her food stamps. HRA did not, however, restore her food stamps at that time but continued to deprive her of these federally funded benefits. It was not until June 21, 2001, that HRA provided Ms. Harris with any retroactive food stamps, and even then it gave her only about two-thirds of what it owed her.
17. Due to her panic disorder, the numerous trips she needed to make to keep her food-stamp benefits caused her great physical and mental distress, including lack of menstruation, diarrhea, dizziness and high blood pressure.
18. During the three months she had to endure without food stamps, Ms. Harris had to ask friends for food and go to charities to get meals, all of which was emotionally draining and humiliating.
5
823538v2

19. Plaintiff William Brown resides as a single person in the County, City and State of New York. He suffers from diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure and partial paralysis of his left-side as a result of a stroke he suffered in 1993.
20. In 1989, Mr. Brown began receiving welfare, including PA, Medicaid, and food stamps. At that time, he received rent assistance of $215, cash assistance of $68 per month, and $110 in food stamps per month. Over the years, the amount of food stamps he received increased to $130 per month.
21. In late December 2000, he was approved for SSI and Social Security Disability Income ("SSD"). In 2001, he began receiving a total of $763 per month in SSI and SSD.
22. At about the same time that he began to receive SSI and SSD, HRA cut off his food stamps without notice. HRA also discontinued his Medicaid benefits.
23. In January 2001, when Mr. Brown went to one of HRA's income support centers to find out what had happened, an HRA employee misrepresented to Mr. Brown that he was no longer eligible for food stamps or Medicaid because he received SSI.
24. In early February 2001, Mr. Brown applied for emergency assistance to move to his current residence. HRA granted his request, but continued to represent falsely that he was not eligible for either food stamps or Medicaid.
25. With help from counsel, Mr. Brown requested a fair hearing challenging HRA's decision to terminate his food stamps. The ALJ found that HRA had wrongfully discontinued Mr. Brown's food-stamp benefits in February 2001. The ALJ
6
823538v2

ordered HRA to restore his food stamps retroactive to February 2001 and to issue a timely and adequate notice of intent if it wished to cut off Mr. Brown's food stamps in the future.
26. Since February, 2001, Mr. Brown has received $68 of food stamps a month, which recently went up to $73 a month. He has not been reinstated to his prior food stamps level of $130. Nor was he provided with any notice or an explanation of why his food-stamp benefits were reduced, despite the ALJ's decision to the contrary.
27. Plaintiff Barbara Marroquin resides as a single person in the County of the Bronx, City and State of New York. She suffers from bipolar and anxiety disorders.
28. She began receiving PA in 1995. 29. SSA approved Ms. Marroquin for SSI in April 2000. 30. On April 22, 2000, HRA notified Ms. Marroquin that her PA benefits would be discontinued due to her receipt of SSI but that her food stamps would continue. The notice further provided that HRA might request Ms. Marroquin to come in to re-evaluate her food stamps eligibility. 31. Despite what HRA stated in its notice, in May 2000, HRA cut off Ms. Marroquin's food-stamp benefits without notice. 32. After appearing at several administrative fair hearings between December 2000 and August 2001, at which she challenged the discontinuance of her food stamps, Ms. Marroquin received retroactive food-stamp benefits from HRA, though not for the entire period in which her benefits were cut off and not for the entire amount.
7
823538v2

Because HRA did not reinstate Ms. Marroquin's food stamps prospectively, she requested another fair hearing.
33. On March 8, 2002, the ALJ ordered HRA to provide food stamps to Ms. Marroquin, retroactive to September 2002. Despite this decision, Ms. Marroquin receives no food stamps at all.
34. Due to her efforts to restore her food stamps, Ms. Marroquin's mental condition deteriorated and she has had to be hospitalized -- once in November 2000 and again in the fall of 2001. Without food stamps, Ms. Marroquin cannot purchase adequate amounts of food for her children, who visit her on weekends. Thus, she must spend all her money on food for them and cannot afford other necessary items.
35. Plaintiff Maria Ojeda resides as a single person in the County of the Bronx, City and State of New York. Ms. Ojeda suffers from major depression with psychotic features, diabetes, severe asthma and hepatitis C.
36. Ms. Ojeda applied for SSI in March 2000. In August 2001, Ms. Ojeda's SSI application was approved.
37. One month earlier, in July 2001, HRA discontinued her food-stamp benefits, allegedly because she had missed an appointment with an employment program. At the time, she had been receiving about $130 per month in food stamps.
38. Represented by counsel, Ms. Ojeda challenged HRA's decision at a fair hearing in July 2001. The ALJ ruled in Ms. Ojeda's favor, ordering HRA to restore her $130-per-month allotment retroactively.
8
823538v2

39. Despite aggressive advocacy by Ms. Ojeda's counsel, HRA has refused to comply with the ALJ's decision. When counsel for Ms. Ojeda inquired as to the reason for the discontinuance, she was informed that Ms. Ojeda would not be issued food stamps because she receives SSI.
40. Without food stamps, Ms. Ojeda can barely afford to eat at all and cannot afford the special diets required by her diabetes and hepatitis C.
The Defendants 41. Defendant Verna Eggleston is the Commissioner of HRA. She is responsible for, inter alia: (1) the overall operation and administration of the Family Assistance ("FA"), Safety Net Assistance ("SNA"), Food Stamps, and Medicaid programs within New York City, including the Office of Employment Services ("OES"); and (2) complying with Federal and State laws and regulations relating to the Medicaid, FA, SNA, Food Stamps, and OES programs. 42. Defendant Brian J. Wing is the Commissioner of OTDA. He is responsible for, inter alia, (1) the administration of New York State's FA, SNA, and Food Stamps programs; (2) supervision of the administrator of the FA, SNA, and Food Stamps programs for the local social services districts; and (3) assuring that the applicable state and city agencies, including HRA comply with those programs.
CLASS ALLEGATIONS 43. The named plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf, and pursuant to Rule 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class defined as follows: All persons who: a) receive, received, or are entitled to receive food stamps; b) are found eligible to receive SSI from SSA while they are, were, or will be receiving food stamps; and c) reside, resided,
9
823538v2

or will reside in categorically eligible households, i.e., households in which each member receives benefits under a State program funded under Part A of the Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., or aid to the aged, blind, or disabled under Title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. when receiving food stamps and found eligible to receive SSI.
44. The class is so numerous that joinder of all members is
impracticable. As of November 2001, 223,892 individuals were categorically eligible for
food stamps because they received SSI and lived alone. Yet, in February 2002, only
126,569 SSI recipients received food stamps, leaving nearly 100,000 categorically
eligible individuals without food stamps.
45. There are numerous common questions of law and fact, including:
Does HRA wrongly terminate or reduce the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients with disabilities who begin receiving SSI?
Does OTDA fail to oversee HRA’s administration of the food stamps program?
Does HRA's policy and practice of terminating or reducing the food stamps of the defined class violate federal and state constitutions and applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to disabled persons and the distribution of food stamps?
Does OTDA's failure to oversee the administration of the food stamps program by HRA with the effect of terminating or reducing the food stamps of the defined class violate federal and state constitutions and applicable federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to disabled persons and the distribution of food stamps?
46. Declaratory and injunctive relief are appropriate with respect to the
class as a whole because Defendants have acted on grounds applicable to the class.
The deprivation of food stamps suffered by the named plaintiffs as set forth in
Paragraphs 12 through 40 hereof typifies HRA’s practice of automatically closing the
food stamps cases of a substantial number of PA recipients who begin receiving SSI.
10
823538v2

47. The named Plaintiffs can fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. Because of their indigency, Plaintiffs are represented by the Urban Justice Center and Patterson, Belknap, Webb & Tyler LLP. Plaintiffs know of no conflicts of interest among members of the class.
48. A class action is superior to other available methods of adjudication because it will avoid numerous, nearly identical separate actions by class members.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY FRAMEWORK 49. In 1964, Congress enacted the FSA to "safeguard the health and well-being of the Nation's population by raising levels of nutrition among low-income households." The Act authorizes subsidies, in the form of food stamps, to eligible households. 7 U.S.C. § 2014. Households in which all members receive SSI are deemed categorically eligible. 7 U.S.C. 2014(a); 7 CFR § 273.2 (j)(2). 50. The food stamp program is regulated at the federal level by the United States Department of Agriculture ("USDA"). 7 U.S.C. § 2013 (a). The USDA makes grants to the appropriate State agencies and is charged with ensuring that the funds are distributed to eligible households in accordance with the FSA and with the USDA's regulations. See 7 U.S.C. §§ 2013(a), 2014(b), 2020. In New York, OTDA is the agency in charge of administering the program statewide and oversees HRA's administration of the program in New York City. See 18 NYCRR Part 387. 51. The FSA and federal and state regulations implementing the FSA require HRA to make it particularly easy for people with disabilities who receive SSI to maintain food stamps. For instance, the FSA and regulations mandate that:
a. Households in which all members receive SSI are deemed to be "categorically eligible" for food stamps. 7 U.S.C. § 2014(a); 7 C.F.R. § 273.2 (j)(2)(i).
11
823538v2

b. 18 N.Y. Comp. Code Rules & Regs. § 387.14(a)(5) essentially tracks this definition of households that are "categorically eligible" to receive and continue to participate in the food stamp program.
c. Households in which all members are either PA or SSI recipients or authorized to receive PA or SSI benefits shall be food stamp eligible based on their PA/SSI status. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(k).
d. Such households are exempted from income tests, and need not supply verification of social security number, sponsored alien information, or residency information. 18 NYCRR 387.14(5) (i)(b).
e. While States may condition some households' receipt of food stamps on regular reports of income and household composition, the FSA explicitly forbids States to require households in which everyone is disabled to file such reports. 7 U.S.C. §§ 2015(c)(1)(A)(iii), 2015(c)(5).
f. A change in status such as the one involved here, i.e., a switch from PA to SSI, requires "the State agency [to] take prompt action on all changes to determine if the change affects the household's eligibility or allotment." Section 273.12(c).
g. Section 273.12(f)(3) prohibits termination of a household's food stamp benefits without making a "separate determination of continued eligibility for such participation."
h. Section 273.13 prohibits termination of food stamps unless a notice has been given and an opportunity to contest the termination at a fair hearing.
i. 7 C.F.R. § 276.1(a)(4) specifies that "[S]tate agencies [i.e., HRA and OTDA] shall be responsible for efficiently and effectively administering the [Food Stamp] Program by complying with the provisions of the [Food Stamp Act] . . ."
52. The FSA even requires the SSA and the USDA to work together to
ensure that eligible SSI households receive food stamps. For example, the SSA and
the USDA must inform SSI applicants at the SSA office of the availability of food stamps
and provide SSI approved applicants with a "simple application" for food stamps. USCA
§ 2020(j)(1).
12
823538v2

53. The USDA has attempted to carry out its duty by repeatedly informing HRA and OTDA that HRA cannot automatically terminate the food stamps of SSI recipients, but to no avail.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO THE CLASS 54. When SSA determines that a PA recipient is disabled and approves him or her to receive SSI, it is HRA's policy, custom and practice to terminate the recipient's food stamps along with his or her PA in a substantial number of cases. Unless enjoined, HRA will continue to deprive these persons of the food stamps to which they are entitled. 55. OTDA supervises HRA's administration of the food stamps program. It knows of and acquiesces in the aforesaid policy, custom and practice of automatically terminating food stamps along with PA in a substantial number of cases involving PA recipients who are approved for SSI. It has failed to stop HRA from violating the applicable federal, state, and city laws and regulations, and unless enjoined, it will continue to do so. 56. The USDA has requested that OTDA and HRA remedy their policy, custom and practice so that they would no longer automatically terminate food stamps along with PA in a substantial number of cases involving PA recipients who are approved for SSI. 57. In June 1990, recognizing its obligations under the FSA and regulation set forth above, HRA put into effect a procedure for effecting a seamless transfer from the status of a PA recipient to that of one on SSI. This procedure is set forth in HRA Center Director's Memo 90-46 June 21, 1990. Paragraph 3 of that Director's Memo entitled "Public Assistance Closings". explicitly covers continuation of
13
823538v2

food stamps for a PA recipient once he or she is terminated from PA by becoming eligible for SSI by activating a so-called "closing code 574" on its computer system.
58. With respect to "Eligible Households", upon determining that the household remains eligible for food stamps, the caseworker is directed to "[U]se the p.a. closing code [identified in subparagraph (a) as "574"] that you would normally use." The directive then states that "[T]he computer will automatically issue an additional month's food stamp benefit to the household." (emphasis added). It then directs caseworkers to "[T]ransfer the case to the NPA Food Stamp Program according to the directions on page 2."
59. Although the Director's Memo provides a mechanism for a seamless transition from PA to SSI, in practice, HRA follows only the first part of the memo, using the p.a. closing code "574." This results in the loss of food stamps for a substantial number of people.
60. USDA, HRA and OTDA discussed this issue in connection with a draft of a Program Access Review ("PAR") based on studies of job centers conducted by USDA in November and December 1998 sent to OTDA and HRA. In addition to other serious problems, USDA found that, contrary to federal law:
"When public assistance was denied at the Job Centers reviewed, applicants were required to file new applications at a Non Public Assistance (NPA) center." 61. This means that people who became ineligible for PA, for example, because they began receiving SSI, were illegally required to file completely new applications for food stamps at a separate office, an "NPA" center designated for food stamps-only cases.
14
823538v2

62. To correct the problem, USDA stated:
1. All local offices accept and act on food stamp applications (even when the eventual management of the cases will be transferred to another office).
2. Applicants are not required to file a new application at an NPA center but should have already completed application forwarded to an NPA center.
3. Appropriate action is taken to continue uninterrupted Food Stamp benefits when appropriate at the time of TANF benefit [PA] termination. (emphasis added).
63. In cases of welfare recipients approved for SSI, recommendation
#3 meant that HRA and OTDA would be required to continue their food stamps
uninterrupted, without a new application.
64. In a letter dated January 8, 1999, Jason Turner, then
Commissioner of HRA, strongly objected to the report, saying "… we do not have to
encourage food stamp applications," and urged USDA not to release it. Brian Wing,
Commissioner of OTDA, backed up Turner in a letter dated January 14, 1999.
65. OTDA and HRA together submitted official comments on the draft
report on January 19, 1999. The USDA was not mollified by OTDA's and HRA's
comments, and in the final version of the PAR, released February 5, 1999, again stated:
OTDA must take immediate action to ensure that
1. Applicants are not required to file a new application at an NPA center, but should have the already completed application forwarded to an NPA center.
2. Appropriate action is taken to continue uninterrupted food stamp benefits, when appropriate, at the time of TANF benefit [PA] termination. (emphasis added).
15
823538v2

66. In a letter accompanying the report, Francis E. Zorn, Administrator
of the Northeast Region of the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service ("FNS"), threatened
to suspend payment of the administrative costs of the program if OTDA and HRA did
not comply within forty days.
67. In a letter dated April 6, 1999, Zorn threatened to "disallow
5,000,000 per quarter of the Federal share of New York's food stamp program
administrative costs, retroactive to February 5, 1999." Zorn reiterated that OTDA and
HRA must "ensure that households who are denied other program benefits are not
required to file another application for food stamp benefits." Wing responded on May 7,
1999, assuring Zorn specifically that "procedures are in place to ensure that households
who are denied other program benefits are not required to file another application
for food stamps." (emphasis added).
68. In a letter dated March 3, 2000, Zorn alerted OTDA to HRA's
continued non-compliance with the Food Stamps Act and summarized a Program
Access Review ("PAR") conducted in November 1999. She stated:
Cases closed for Public Assistance (PA) are not separately determined for food stamps Our review confirmed that some public assistance (PA) cases are closed without being separately evaluated for food stamp eligibility. The issue of separate determination has been a long-standing concern for FNS. The State must ensure that cases closed for PA are separately determined for food stamps . . .[Y]our agency must provide us with an immediate plan of corrective action on this serious program deficiency. 69. On April 4, 2001, William Lienhard, one of plaintiffs' attorneys in this
case, met Burton Blaustein, a Deputy Commissioner for HRA, at a symposium on
16
823538v2

welfare reform at New York University School of Law. When questioned about PA
recipients losing their food stamps and having to start over again with new applications
for food stamps at a different office when they were approved for SSI, Mr. Blaustein and
his aides assured Mr. Lienhard that it did not happen. Mr. Blaustein and his aides
explained that all the local centers could and did continue food stamps uninterrupted
when recipients were approved for SSI.
70. On April 5, 2001, the following day, Miranda Schell, a UJC
advocate, faxed a letter to Mr. Blaustein concerning plaintiff William Brown, a diabetic.
Schell stated:
Please issue Mr. Brown's food stamps immediately and retroactively. At this time, he cannot afford to eat, and this is an emergency.
(emphasis in original).
71. On April 10, 2001, contradicting HRA's statements to the USDA
and Mr. Blaustein's assurances to Mr. Lienhard, Mr. Blaustein wrote back:
On January 16, 2001, the Income Clearance Program closed Mr. Brown's P.A. case because he started receiving SSI. The closing code 215 was used. As per our Staff Development Coordinator, the closing code 215 generates and initiates the mailing of a notice to the appropriate Food Stamps (F.S.) Office instructing it to contact the new SSI recipient. On receipt of this notice the F.S. Office is to mail the new SSI recipient a food stamps application. The P.A. Center is not responsible for preparing a separate food stamps determination packet in this case.
(emphasis added).
72. HRA never provided Mr. Brown with a notice or a new application.
It simply cut off his food stamps without warning.
17
823538v2

73. Recently, Robert O'Halloran of HRA represented that since September 2001, it had set up a manual transfer process whereby HRA effects a seamless transfer of food stamp benefits for single person households terminated from PA upon becoming eligible for SSI benefits. Mr. O'Halloran did not know whether this manual transfer covered all such cases and had no information about any efforts of HRA to contact the approximately 95,000 SSI-eligible households that are currently not receiving food stamps and whose SSI eligibility occurred prior to September 2001.
FACTS OF INDIVIDUALLY NAMED PLAINTIFFS 74. The facts pertaining to the defendants' depriving individually named plaintiffs of food stamps set forth in paragraphs 12 through 40 herein constitute factual allegations common to this class.
IRREPARABLE INJURY AND NO ADEQUATE REMEDY AT LAW
75. HRA's discontinuance of plaintiffs' food stamp benefits when plaintiffs qualify for SSI causes irreparable injury to plaintiffs' physical and mental health by depriving them of adequate nutrition and forcing them to rely on friends and charities for food.
76. OTDA's failure to ensure that HRA continues food stamps benefits to plaintiffs and the other members of the class when they qualify for SSI causes irreparable injury to plaintiffs' physical and mental health by depriving them of adequate nutrition and forcing them to rely on friends and charities for food
77. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law.
18
823538v2

AS AND FOR A FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS 78. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI and OTDA's ratification thereof through its acquiescence in this custom, practice and policy of HRA violate the Food Stamps Act, 7 U.S.C.A. §§ 2011, 2014, 2015, and 2020, as well as violate the USDA regulations implementing the Food Stamps Act, 7 C.F.R. §§ 273.2(j)(2), 273.12(a)(1)(i), 273.2(k)(1)(a)(2), 273.12(c), 273.12(f)(3). AS AND FOR A SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS 79. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI and OTDA's ratification thereof through its failure to supervise HRA violate the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132 et seq. and the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.
AS AND FOR A THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS 80. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI and OTDA's ratification thereof through its failure to supervise HRA violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that these customs, practices and policies wrongfully deprive needy people of a vested property interest without notice or hearing.
19
823538v2

AS AND FOR A FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST HRA
81. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI violates the due process clause of the New York Constitution, N.Y. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 6, in that this custom, practice and policy wrongfully deprives needy people of a vested property interest without notice or hearing.
AS AND FOR A FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST BOTH DEFENDANTS
82. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI and OTDA's ratification thereof through its failure to supervise HRA violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, enforceable under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, in that these customs, practices and policies irrationally and unfairly discriminate against and, in fact, penalize needy people with disabilities who have received or are eligible to receive SSI benefits. The actions of HRA and the ratification thereof through its acquiescence by OTDA of those actions have necessarily created and carved out a special class of needy people otherwise eligible for food stamps who are denied those stamps by virtue of their being members of the class defined herein.
AS AND FOR A SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST HRA
83. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI violates
20
823538v2

the equal protection clauses of the New York Constitution, N.Y. Const. Art. 1, Sec. 11, in that this custom, practice and policy irrationally and unfairly discriminates against and, in fact, penalizes needy people with disabilities who have received or are eligible to receive SSI benefits. The actions of HRA have necessarily created and carved out a special class of needy people otherwise eligible for food stamps who are denied those stamps by virtue of their being members of the class defined herein.
AS AND FOR A SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST HRA
84. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of termination or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI violate OTDA regulations implementing the Food Stamps Act, 18 N.Y. Comp. Codes R. & Regs. Part 387.
AS AND FOR A EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF AGAINST HRA
85. HRA's custom, practice, and policy of terminating or reducing the food stamps of a substantial number of PA recipients who are approved for SSI violates Article XVII, Section 1 of the New York State Constitution.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs respectfully request that this court enter a judgment in their favor and in favor of the defined class as follows: 1. Certify this action as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of a class defined as all persons who: a) receive, received, or are entitled to receive food stamps; b) are found eligible to receive SSI from SSA while they are, were, or will be receiving food stamps; and c)
21
823538v2

reside, resided, or will reside in categorically eligible households, i.e., households in which each member receives benefits under a State program funded under Part A of the Title IV of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1381 et seq., or aid to the aged, blind, or disabled under Title I, X, XIV, or XVI of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 301 et seq. when receiving food stamps and found eligible to receive SSI.
2. Issue a declaratory judgment that the custom, practice and policy of HRA in terminating or reducing food stamps of plaintiffs and the defined class and the ratification thereof by OTDA through its acquiescence and failure to supervise HRA violate the following federal statutes and regulations:
a. The Food Stamps Act, 7 U.S.C. §§ 2011, 2014, 2015 and 2020; b. 7 C.F.R. § 273; c. The Americans With Disability Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12132, et seq.; d. The Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 794, et seq.; e. The due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and f. the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. 3. Issue a declaratory judgment that the custom, practice and policy of HRA in terminating or reducing food stamps of plaintiffs and the defined class violates the following state statutes and regulations: a. 18 New York City Comp. Code Rules and Regulations, Part 387; b. The due process clauses of the New York Constitution, Article I, § 6; c. The equal protection clauses of the New York Constitution, Article I, § 11 and d. Article XVII, § 1 of the New York Constitution.
22
823538v2

4. Issue a declaratory judgment that the violations of HRA and OTDA set forth above were done under color of law and in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
5. Order injunctive relief against both defendants, jointly and severally, and their successors and all those acting in concert with them temporarily, preliminarily and permanently enjoining the continuing violations set forth in ¶¶ 2 and 3 of this prayer for relief.
6. Direct HRA and OTDA to prepare and implement a program to ensure that:
a) when disabled PA recipients are approved for SSI, their food stamps continue uninterrupted, with no additional appointments, applications, or paperwork required of the recipients, and their food stamps allotments are properly recalculated; b) when disabled PA recipients are approved for SSI, they receive adequate notice of any change in their food stamps allotments 7. Direct HRA to make restitution to all members of the class from whom it has wrongfully withheld food stamps and establish a procedure for making such restitution. 8. Issue a decree providing this Court with continuing jurisdiction subsequent to the entry of the relief set forth above and appointing a Special Master to ensure compliance with the injunctive decrees issued hereunder. 9. Award plaintiffs their costs and reasonable attorneys' fees as provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 1988.
23
823538v2

10. Grant such other and further relief as the court may deem just and proper. Dated: April 1, 2002
PATTERSON, BELKNAP, WEBB & TYLER LLP By:____________________________
David F. Dobbins (DD 3278) 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10036 (212) 336-2000
24
823538v2

 
 0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 L 6 : 1 3 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

@l002/030

UNTTED STATES DlSTRTCT COUR?'

SOUTHERN DISTRlCT OF NEW YORK

/ O / r f / / ) ________________--------------------------
BARBARA HARRIS, WILLIAM BROWN:

--

--

--

--X-----

--

--

-i-,
.i i.

DATE

. I,@.

i'-l-!II)-:-.

%+ .,.:

BARBARA MARROQUIN, and MARIA OJEDA,

on behalfof themselves and all

others similarly situated,

02 Civ. 2498 (RMB)

VERNA EGGLESTON, in her official capacity as the Commissioner of The City ofNew York Human Resources Administration, and BFUAN J. WING, in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance,

STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER

Defendants.
X

WHEREAS, this action was commenced on behalfof a proposed class of adult recipients of Supplemental Security Income ("SSI") who formerly received public assistance food stamps ('TPA/FS") who alleged that when VERNA EGGLESTON, a s Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration ("City defendant") properly closed their public assistance ("PA") cases due to their receipt of SSI, City defendant improperly discontinued their PA/FS without makhg a separate determination of continuing food stamp eligibility, and fiather alleged that BRlAN 1.WING, as commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance ('State defendant"), failed to properly supervise City Defendant; and

WHEREAS, the proposed plaintifTclass sought declaratory relief against the alleged customs, policies, and practices of City defendant resulting in ( I ) discontinuing the food stamp benefits of adult recipients of PA who are determined to be eligible for SSI benefits without making a separate determination of continuing food stamp eligibility; and (2) failing to give timely and adequate notice to adult recipients of PAFS when the PA case closed of City defendant's intent to discontinue PAKS benefits because the recipients were eligiile for SSI; and

WHEREAS, the proposed p l a i n t s class sought declaratory relief against State defendant for *fg to supcrvise the customs, policies, and praclices of City defendant to ensure that where City defendant discontinues PA because the PA recipient has begun to receive SSI, City defendam continues the food stamp benefits of such recipients of PAFS until a separae determination of

-- 0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 4 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN J U S T l C E CENTER

the recipients' continuing eligibihty for non-public assistance food stamps ("PA FS") is made; and
WEREAS, State defendant represents that he has m o d ~ e dthe Welfare Management System ("WMS") to automatically open NPA FS cases for single SSI recipients living abne whose public assistance cases close due to the receipt of SSI benefits; and
WHEREAS, City defendant represents that she has instituted a manual process and utilizes the automated computer process that is part of WMS to make separate determinations of food stamp eligibility where public assistance food stamp benefits are discontinued becausc the public assistance recipient has begun to receive SSI and represents that she utilizes these processes to issue notices regarding food stamp benefits in such cases; and
WHEREAS, City defendant bas published Policy Directive #02-48-ELI and MAP
- Procedure 01 16(R1) and distributed same to appropriate staff describingprocedures for
continuing the food stamp benefits of public assistance recipients whose public assistance food stamp benefits have been discontinued because they have begun to receive SSI, and represents chat she has trained employees about these procedures as part of ongoing training of employees; and
WHEREAS, State defendant represents that he has advised administrative law judges who conduct fair hearings, that if a former recipient of public assistance who has begun to receive SSI requests fair hearing review of City defendant's determination to close a PA/FS case or failure to open a NPA FS case, at the hearing the new NPA FS case shall be considered a continuation of the public assistance food stamp case and City Defendant has the burden of proof of explaining the action taken or the failure to act; and
WHEREAS, defendants have denied and continue to deny any and all wrongdoing alleged in the complaint; and
WHEREAS, plainti£fs and defendants are entering into this Stipulation of Settlement and Order ("Stipulation") solely for the purpose of s e t t h g the disputes between them and to avoid further litigation, and without adrmtting any fault or Liability; and
WHEREAS, the parties desire to settle this action on terms and conditionsjust and fair to all parties; and
WHEREAS, counsel for the parties have agreed lo the certification of a class; and
WHEREAS, the Urban Justice Center, Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP and Gibson &nn & Crutchcr LLP (collectively"plaintBs7 counseI")have represented and continue to represent plaintiffs and the certified class, with Gibson Dunn &.Crutcher LLP having been

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 16:14 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUST1CE CENTER

substituted as counsel kepiacingPatterson B e h a p Webb & Tyler LLP by Notice of Substitution dated June 29,2006; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs' counsel represent that they have not received, and will not receive, any payment f?om any named plaintiff or other plaintiff class member in connection with work done on behalf of plaintiffs in this action; and
WHEREAS, plaintiffs and defendants wish to resolve the issue of defendants' liability for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements payable to plaintif&' counsel;
IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND ORDERED:
1. CONDlTIONAL NATURE OF THIS STIPULATIOK
I . Defendants will perform the acts described in this Stipulation if the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture ("Secretary") formally acquiesces to the terms of this Stipulation based on the Secretary's authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2022(a) "lo determine the amount of and settle and
adjust my claim ... arising under the provisions of this act or the regulations issued pursuant to this act...."
2. Within ten (10) business days of the execution of this Stipulation, but prior to the submission of this Stipulation to the Court, State defendant will provide all counsel with a draft letter to the Department of Agriculture requesting the Secretary to acquiesce to the terms of this Stipulation. Said Ietter will, in addition to seekmg acquiescence, request that all communications from the Department of Agriculture concerning said request, including but not &ted to communications raising m y questions concerning the stipulation, be made in writing. In addition State defendant agrees that all communication from State defendant to the Secretary shall be in writing. Plaintif%'counsel will have ten (10) business days to provide any comments to State defendant on the contents of the letter seeking acquiescence, and State defendant will consider all comments raised by Plaintiffs' counsel. State defendant will subsequently submit a copy of the Stipulation and a letter to the Departmeni of Agriculture requesting the Secretary to acquiesce to the terms of this Stipulation. State defendant wiU provide all counsel with copies of all correspondence and documents sent between the Secretary and State defendant concerning this request.for acquiescence. State defendant will allow ail parties five (5) business days to comment on any communications G-om the Secretary prior to submitting a written response to the written communication from the Secretary and will consider such comments in drafting any response.
3. Unless and until the Secretary fonnaUy acquiesces to the terms of this Stipulation by demonstrating acquiescence in writing in response to the request for acquiescence, defendants are not obligated to perform the acts described in this Strpulation and plaintiffs have no enforceable rights based on any provision contained in this Stipulation.

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 5 FAX 2 1 2 533 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

@l005/030

4. If five months have elapsed since State defendant's submission of the request for
acquiescence and the Secretary has not responded, State defendant will send the Secretary a letter
inquiring into the status of the request for acquiescence and expressing the hope that a response will be made promptly. If another two months have elapsed ahd the Secretary has not responded or has provided some response other tban fdl acquiescence, counse1 for the parties shall meet and discuss alternative methods of case disposition If the Secretary formally denies the request for acquiescence to the t e r m of this Stipulation, fails to act or provides some response other tban full acquiescencewithin seven months, after ~ u s s i o namong the parties, the parties are fiee to take any steps to dispose of this action, including but not limited to resuming negotiationsabout terms contained in the Stipulation or resuming discovery and trial preparation.
5. If lhe Secretary formally acquiesces to the terms of this Stipulation, the parties shall jointly present this Stipulation to the Court.
6. Tbis Stipulation shall not take effect until the Court enters a judgment approving the Stipulation Pursuant to Federal Rulc of CimI Procedure 23(e) and "So Orders" this Stipulation.
11. DEFTNITIONS
7. When used in this Stipulation, the following terms have the following meanings:
(A) The phrase "Department of Agriculture" refers to the Food and Nutrition Service of the United States Department of Agriculture.
(B) The phrase "public assistance" or the acronym "PA" refers to benefits f h h e d to needy individuals by local social services districts, including City defendant, through the
Family Assistance program codified at New York Social Services Law 3 343 et seq., and the Safety Net Assistance program codified at New Y ork Social Services Law 9 157 gt
seq.
(C) The phrase "Supplemental Security Income" or the acronym "SSI" refers to benefits furnished to individuals by the United States Social Security Administration pursuant to 42
U.S.C. 4 1381 et seq., including the additional state payments hrnished to residents of
New York State by the Social Security Admhstration pursuant to 42 U.S.C.$ 1382e and
New York Social Services Law 8 207 et seq.
(D) The phrases "Food Stamps" or "Food Stamp benefits" refers to benefits furnished pursuant to the Food Stamp Act of 1975 codified at 7 U.S.C. tj 201 1 et seq. and federal regulations at 7 C.F.R. Parts 27 1 through 282 and implemented in New York State by
New York Social Services Law #g 95 and 147 and State regulations at 18 N.Y.C.R.R.
Parts 358, 359 and 387.

05/24/2007 1 6 : 1 5 FAX 212 533 4598

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

(E) The phrase "food stamp household" or the word "household" refers to a household as
defined in 7 C.F.R. 8 273.1 and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. 4 387.1(w) that receives food stamps. A
household may consist of one or more members.
(F) The phrase "public assistance food stamps" or the acronym "PA/FS7'refers to food stamp benefits provided to a household that is also in receipt of public assistance benefits. Public assistance food stamps are provided to, among others, eligible households containing a member or members who receive SSl if the household contains another member who receives public assistaoce.
(G) The phrase "non-public assistance food stamps" or the split acronym "NPA FS" refers to the Food Stamp benefits provided to a household that is not also in receipt of public assistance benefits. Non-public assistance food stamps are provided to, among others, eligible households containing a member or members who receive SSI if the household contains no other member who receives public assistance.
(H) The acronym "SDX" refers to the State Data Exchange, a database compiled by the United States Social Security Admmstration as part of the administration of the SSI program SDX shall also include any successor database or system intended to fulfill the same fbnction.
(I) The acronym "WMS" refers to the Welfare Management System, a database designed by State defendant for use by local social services districts, including City defendant, in the administration of benefit programs in New York State including the public assistance and food stamp programs. City defendant collects infonnation about individual cases and
enters sucb information into W M S . WMS shall also include any successor database or system intended to hlfill the same h c t i o n .
(J) The phrase "closing code" refers to a combination of letters or numbers that is entered on WMS to indicate that an action is being taken for a given reason. Entry of closing codes causes WMS to take certain actions, such as generating notices and discontinuing the payment of benefits. Since April of 1999, City defendant has used closing codes E34 and 215 to trigger the closing of a public assistance case because the public assistance recipient had begun receiving SSI benefits and because no one eliglble to receive public assistance remained in the household.
(K) The phrasc "separate determination" shall have the same meaning as in 7 C.F.R.
8 273.12(f)(3) and 7 U.S.C. $ 2020(i)(2).
(L) "Noticc" refers to a notice that complies with 18 N.Y.C.R.R. $ 358-3.3(b) and (e).
(M) The phrase "SSI recipients living alone" refers to people who receive SSI who are coded on the SDX a s A/A households of one, who live alone in the community, who

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 6 FAX 2 1 2 533 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

formerly received public assistance and whose PARS cases were closed by City defendant between Apnl 1; 1999-andthe expiration date of this agreement due to receipt of SSI using closing codes 215, E34, or any successor codes used to indicate that reason for case closing, without malung a separate determination of eligibility for NPA FS.

(N) The phrase "SSI couples" refers to married couples where both spouses receive SSI as a couple who are coded on the SDX as A/A households of two, and: i) where one of the two ("person A") received SSI while the second spouse ("person B") received public assistance but has since begun receiving SSI; or iii where both spouses formerly received public assistance and thereafter received SSI, whose PA/FS cases were closed by City defendant between April I , 1999 and the expiration date of this agreement due to receipt of SSI using closing codes 2 15, E34, or any successor codes used to indicate that reason for case closing without makrog a separate determination of eligibility for NPA FS.

(0)The phrase "SSI recipients living with others" refers to people who receive SSI, who are coded on the SDX as A/B, live witb others and do not live in a "group living
arrangement" as that term is used in 7 C.F.R. 9 273.1(b)(7)(vi)(c) or in a "treatment center" as that term is used in 7 C.F.R.§ 273.1@)(7)(vi)(B)who formerly received
PA/FS, and whose PA/FS cases were closed by City defendant between April 1, 1999 and
the expiration date of this agreement due to receipt of SSI using closing codes 215, E34, or any succcssor codes used to indicate that reason for case closing, without making a , separate determination of eligibility for NPA FS.

(P) The phrase "Electronic Benefit Transfer System" refers to the Electronic Benefit
Transfer System designed by State defendant for use by local social services districts for
the distribution of food stamp benefits pursuant to 7 U.S.C. § 2016(I), 7 C.F.R. 9 274.12,
NY Social Services Law $21-a and 18 N.Y.C.R.R. $381.2(b).

(Q) The phraseb'Mass rebudpeting" or the acronym "MRB'refers to the process described

in section JV of this Stipulation to provide restored food stamp benefits to SSI recipients

living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others described in definitions M,

I

N and 0 of paragraph 7 of this Stipulation who are listed on the SDX a s recipients of SSI

on the first matched list, prepared as provided in paragraph I 1 of this Stipulation, whose

PAPS cases were closed due to the receipt of SSI between April 1, 1999, and the date

this Stipulation is So Ordered.

(R.) Tbe phrase "restored food stamp benefits" refers to benefits provided pursuant to Section IV of this Stipulation and distributed through the Electronic Benefit Transfer System.

05/24/2007 16:17 PAX 212 533 4598

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

111. CLASS CERTXFICATION
8. A class is certdied consisting of:
All residents of New York City who are: (1) SSI recipients living alone; or (2) SSI couples; or (3) SSI recipients living with others, descn'bed in d e h t i o n s M, N and 0 of
paragraph (7) of this Stipulation, whose public assistance Food Stamps have been or will be discontinued by City defendant between April I , 1999 and the expiration date of this agreement due to receipt of SSI without making a separate determination of eligibility for non-public assistance food stamps.
IV. RELIEF FOR CLASS MEMBERS WHOSE PUBL'IC ASSISTANCE FOOD STAMP CASES WERE CLOSED DUE TO RECEIPT OF SSI BETWEEN APRIL 1,1999AND THE
DATE THIS STIPULATION IS SO ORDERED
9. The provisions of this section IV of this Stipulation(MI 9 through 45) describe and
define the relief to be provided by defendants to SSI recipients living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others who are listed on the SDX as recipients of SSI on the first matched list, prepared as provided in paragraph 11 of this Stipulation, whose PA/FS cases were closed due to the receipt of SSI between April 1, 1999, and the date this Stipulation is So Ordered.
(a) IDENTIFJCATION OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT MAY RECEIVE RESTORED FOOD STAMP BENEFITS AND MASS REBUDGETING
10. Within 60 days of the date this Stipulation is So Ordered, using data kepi on WMS, State defendant wiU identlfy all PAFS cases that were closed due to receipt of SSI using closing codes 2 15, E34, or any successor codes between April 1, 1999 and the date tbis Stipulation is So Ordered.
1I . Within 60 days of the date this Stipulation is So Ordered, State defendant will
determine which cases identified in the process d e s c n i d in the preceding paragraph (5 10 of this
Stipulation) may be eligible to receive restored food stamp benefits pursuant to Section IV of this Stipulationby comparing the list of cases identified in the process described in Lhe preceding paragraph 10 to the list of current SSI recipients residing in the City of New York contained on the SDX and coded A/A or A03 as of that date and shall make a list of SSl recipients living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others who appear on both lists ("the first matched list"). No more than 20 days prior to performing the MRB, State defendant will compare the list of SSI recipients living alone, SSl couples, and SSI recipients living with others identified in the process d e s c n i d in the preceding paragraph 10 to the list of current SSI recipients residing in the City of New York contained on the SDX and coded A/A or A/B as of that date and will make a list of SSI recipients Living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others who appear on both lists ("the second matched List"). State defendant will provide to plaintiffs' counsel a list

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 7 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN J U S T I C E CENTER

by case number of each case on the respective matched lists w i t h meen business days after it is created.
12. SSI recipients living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others coded AIA or A/B appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list will receive relief pursuant to paragraphs 18-27 of this Stipulation. SSI recipients living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients living with others coded AIA or A/B on the SDX appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list will receive relief pursuant to paragraphs 28-37 of this Stipulation.
13. In order to be eligible to receive a restored food stamp benefit pursuant to Section IV of this Stipulation, a person must be residing in a food stamp eligible living arrangement as provided in the Federal Food Stamp Act (7 U.S.C. $ 201 1 et seq.) and implementing federal regulations (7 C.F.R. Part 273) on the date of the most recent matched list on which the person appears, and must reside in New York City on the date benefits are restored. No person who is deceased, incarcerated or no longer residing in New York City on the date of the most recent matched ht on which the person appears is eligible to receive a restored food stamp benefit pursuant to this Stipulation.
14. No later than twelve months after So Ordering of this stipulation, State defendant will perform a mass rebudgeting ("MRB") to provide the restored food stamps in the amounts described in Subsections (b) and (c) of this Section IV of this Stipulation to class members identified through the process described in paragraphs 10 and 11 of this Stipulation.
15. To conduct the m s rebudgeting, State defendant will prepare a program that analyzes data contained on the WMS and the SDX and determines for each case receiving relief pursuant to paragraphs 18 through 37:
(A) whether a case is that of an SSI recipient living alone, an SSI couple or an SSI recipient living with others descn'bed in definitions M, N and 0 of paragraph 7 of this Stipulation who are listed on the SDX as recipients of SSl on the first matched list, prepared as provided in paragraph 11 of this Stipulation, whose P M S cases were closed due to the receipt of SSI between April 1, 1999, and the date this Stipulation is So Ordered:
(B) Whether the household is currently receiving food stamps, received food stamps for a time and the food stamp case is nowrclosed. or never received food stamps since the date the PAIFS case closed due to receipt of SSJ using closing codes E34 or 215;
(C) the last month the case received PAES;
(Dl if the. case received NPA FS after the month the PA/FS case was closed, the first month the case received NPA FS;

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 8 F.4S 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

@I0 1 0 / 0 3 0

(E) whether more than one SSI recipient living alone or SSI recipient living with others
resides in a single food stamp household on the date the MRB occurs; and

(F) the dollar amount of food stamps to be restored to each household applying the guidelines contained in Subsections (b) or (c) of Section IV (T[Ti 18 through 37) of this Stipulation to the specific facts of each household.

16. State defendant will authorize the restored benefit calculated in the MRB in the
amounts provided io subsections (b) and (c) of section IV of this Stipulation and issue such
benefit through the electronic benefit transfer system

17. State defendant will mail a notice, more fully d e s c r i i in subsection (d) of this
Section IV of this Stipulation, to each identilied class member to whom restored food stamp benefits are hmished. State defendant will mail notices to those SSI recipients living alone, SSI
couples, and SSI recipients living with others receiving relief pursuant to paragraphs 18 through 27 of this Stipulation at the address listed on the SDX at the time that relief is provided. State defendant will mail notices to those SSI recipients living alone, SSI couples, and SSI recipients iiving with others receiving relief pursuant to paragraphs 28 through 37 of this Stipulation at the address listed on tbe W S on the date that State defendant performs the acts required by paragraph ten (10) of this Stipulation.

(b) RELIEF TO BE PROVIDED TO CLASS MEMBERS APPEARING ON BOTH THE
FIRST MATCHED LIST AND THE SECOND MATCHED LIST

18. SSI recipients living alone appearing on both the fust matched list and the second
matched list who have active NPA FS cases when the MRB occurs will be provided restored food
stamps of $1 1 1 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1, 2001, and the month the NPA FS case b s t opened subsequent to April I, 2001 for up to twentyone months of restored food stamp benefits.

19. SSI recipients living alone appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list who, after the closing of their PNFS cases, had open food stamp cases in Apnd, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when the MRB occurs will be provided restored rood stamps of $1 1I per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to twenty-one months of restored food stamp benefits.

20. SSI recipients h m g alone appearing on both the first matched list and the second

matched b t who have not had an open food stamp case between the close of the PAFS case and

the month the MRB occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $11I per month for all

months they did not receive any food stamps during.the twenty-one months prior to the month in

which the MRB occurs. During the six months following the month in which the MRB occurs.

State defendant will mail food stamp applications to these class members at the addresses shown

1

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 8 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CEN'I'EH

on the SDX on the date State defendant complies with the second sentence ofparagraph I I of
thls Stipulation. If class members fill out these applications and return them to City defendant,
City defendant will process these applications for ongoing food stamps.
21. SSI couples appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list who have active food stamp cases when The MRI3 occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $183 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to twenty-one months of restored food stamp benefits.
22. SSI couples appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list who, after the closing of their PARS cases, had open food stamp cases in April, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when The MRB occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $1 83 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to twenty-one months of restored food stamp benefits.
23. SSI couples appearing on both the fist matched List and the second matched list who have not had an open food stamp case between the close of the PARS case and the month The MRB occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $183 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps during the twenty-one months prior to the month in which The MRB occurs. During the six months following the month in which The MRB occurs, State defendant will mail food stamp applicationsto these class members at the addresses shown on the -SDXon the date State defendant complies with the second sentence of paragraph I1 of this Stipuiation. If the recipient returns the application to City defendant, City defendant will process the application for ongoing food stamps.
24. SSI recipients living with others appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list who have active food stamp cases when The MRB occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $111 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps betwecn April 1,2001, and the month the NPA FS case first opened subsequent to April 1, 2003 for up to twenty-one months of restored food stamp benefits.
25. SSI recipients living with others appearing on both the k s t matched list and the second matched b t who, after the closing of their PA/FS cases, had open food stamp cases in April, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when The MRB occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $ 1 1 I per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1, 200 1, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to twenty-one months of restored food stamp benefits.
26. SSI recipients living with others appearing on both the first matched list and the second matched list who have nor had an open food stamp case between the close of the PA/FS case and the month The MRE occurs will be provided restored food stamps of $ I 11 per month

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 1 9 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

a012/030

:

for dlmonths they did not receive any food stamps during the twenty-one months prior to the

I I

month in which The MRB occurs. Within 30 days of the MRB, State defendant will mail food

stamp applications and a list of City defendant's NPA FS centers to these class members at the

addresses shown on the SDX on the date State defendant complies with the second sentence of

paragraph 11 of this Stipulation.If class members fill out these applications and return them to

City defendant, City defendant will process these applications for ongoing food stamps.

27. If more than one SSI recipient living alone or SSI recipient living with others reside in a single food stamp household on thc date that State Defendant provides relief pursuant to paragraphs 18, 19, 20, 24, 25, or 26 of this Stipulation, the $111 standard mnthly benefit will be increased by $72 per month for each additional SSI recipient living alone or SSJ recipient living with others who is part of the food stamp household.

(c) RELIEF TO BE PROVIDED TO CLASS MEMBERS appearing on the first matched list but not appearinp on the second matched list

28. Former SSI recipients living alone appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who have active NPA FS cases when the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $111 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the NPA FS case first opened subsequent to April 1, 2001 for up to twelve months of restored food stamp benefits.

29. Former SS1 recipients living alone appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched List who, after the closing oftheir PAES cases, had open food stamp cases in Apnl, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $1 1 I per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April I, 2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1, 2001 for up to twelve months of restored food stamp benefits.

30. Former SSI recipients living alone appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who have not had an open food starnp case between the dose of the PA/FS case and the month the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $1 11 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps during the twelve months prior to the month in which The MRB occurs.

31. Former SSI couples appearing on the fist matched list but not appearing on the second matched List who have active food stamp cases when the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $1 83 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to Apnl 1, 2001 for up to twelve month of restored food stamp benefits.

32. Former SSI couples appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched kt who, after the closing of their PA/FS cases, had open food stamp cases in

05/'24/2007 1 6 : 2 0 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

@J013/030

April, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when the second matched list is
compiled will be provided restored food s t q s of $183 per month for all months they did not
receive any food stamps bemeen April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case f i s t opened
subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to twelve months of restorkd food stamp benefits.
33. Former SSI coupies appearing on the fist matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who have not had an open food stamp case between the close of the PNFS case and the month the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $183 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps during the twelve months prior to the month in which The MRB occurs.
34. Former SSI recipients livig with others appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who have active food stamp cases when the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $1 11 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the NPA FS case first o p e d subsequent to April 1, 2001 for up to twelve months of restored food stamp benefits.
35. Former SSI recipients living with others appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who, after the closing of their PA/FS cases, had open food stamp cases in Apnl, 2001 or later and whose food stamp cases are closed when the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $111 per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps between April 1,2001, and the month the food stamp case first opened subsequent to April 1,2001 for up to tweive months of restored food stamp benefits.
36. Former SSI recipients living with others appearing on the first matched list but not appearing on the second matched list who have not had an open food stamp case between the closc of the PNFS case and the month the second matched list is compiled will be provided restored food stamps of $111per month for all months they did not receive any food stamps during the twelve months prior to the month in which The MRB occurs.
37. If more than one former SSJ recipient living alone or SSI recipient living with others, resided in a single food stamp household on the date upon which State defendants provide relief pursuant to p a r a p p h s 28,29,30,34, 35 or 36 of this Stipulation, the $111 standard monthly benefit will be increased by $72 per month for each additional former SSI recipient living alone or SSJ recipient living with others who was part of the food stamp household on that date.
(d) NOTICE TO RECIPIENTS OF RESTORED FOOD STAMPS
38. State defendant will mil notices to the recipients of restored food stamps.
39. Each notice shall state that the recipient is receiving a one-time payment of restored food stamps as part of the settlement of this litigation and shall contain the monthly restored

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 2 0 FAX 212 5 3 3 4598

URBAN J U S T I C E CENTER

benefit amount, the n&ber of months of NPA FS being restored, the total amount of NPA FS being restored and instructions for redeeming the restored Food Stamps.
40. Notices sent to households that do not have activefood stamp cases when the MRB occurs shall contain a statement that the household may apply for ongoing food stamps separate kom thc one- time restored food stamp payment described in the notice, and shall contain the telephone number of State defendant's hotline that the recipient may call to get further information.
41. Notices sen1 to recipients who will also be receiving an application by separate cover pursuant to the provisions of parajgaphs 20, 23 and 26 of this Stipulation shall inform the recipient that an application is coming by separate mailing.
42. Where an application is mailed to a recipient of an MIU3 notice, the application mailing shall include a separate cover letter explaining that the application is being sent as part of the settlement of this litigation and shall contain instructions about how the application should be returned to City defendant.
(e) MONITORING THE MRB
43. State Defendant will send to plaintiffs' counsel,within 120 days of the MRB descn-ed in paragraph 14 of this stipulation, an electronic list (in text file with fixed columns) of class members by case number containing the information set forth in subparagraphs A-F below:
(A) the'SSI living arrangement ( N A single, IVA couple or A D ) as coded on the SDX at the time the fist matched list is compiled; and
(B) thc SSI living arrangement (MA siqle, IVA couple or A&) and pay status (active or closed) as coded on the SDX at the time the second matched list is compiled; and
(C) the household's last rnonth of receipt of food stamps after lhe PA/FS case closed using codes 215, E34, or any successor codes; and
(D) the household's frrst month of receipt of food stamps after the NPA/FS case was opened, ifany (ifthere is no such month, this cohtmn will be left blank); and
(E) the houqehold's food stamp status (active or closed) at the time of the MRB described in paragaph 14 of this stipulation; and
(F) the amount of the household's restored benefit.

05/24/2007 1 6 : 2 1 FAX 212 533 4598

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

44. For relief provided pursuant to paragraph 27 and 37 of this Stipulation, State
defendant wlll provide to plaintss' counsel w i t h 120 days of the MRB described in paragraph
14 of this stipulation, the number of households receiving relief pursuant to each paragraph.
45. State defendant will provide to plaintiffs' counsel the total number of applications mailed pursuant to paragraphs 20'23 and 26 of this Stipulation, no later than seven months afier the MRB occurs.
V. OUTREACH MAILINGS
46. No later than sixteen months after the date of So Ordering of this stipulation, defendants will provide plaintfi' counsel with copies of mailingsthat they plan to send to SSI recipients not in receipt of food stamp benefits as provided in paragraph 48 of this Stipulation, and plaintiffs' counsel will have an opportunity to review and comment on these mailings.
47. Seventeen months afier the date of So Ordering of this stipulation, using data kept on the SDX and the WMS, State defendant will identlfLall residents of New York City who receive SSI as AfA couples or A/B individuals and who do no1 receive food stamp benefits.
48. Within 30 days of the identification d e s c n i in the preceding paragraph, State defendant will send outreach mailings to the identified AlI3 SSI individuals and City defendant will send outreach mailings to the identified AIA SSI couples. The outreach mailings will advise recipients that because they receive SSI, they may be eligible for food stamp benefits, and how and where they can apply for food stamp benefits.
V1. PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
(m 49. The provisions of this section W of this Stipulation 49 through 57) describe and
define the actions defendants will take where public assistance food stamp cases are closed due to receipt of SSI between the date this Stipulation is So Ordered and the expiration date of this agreement.
50. Nothing contained in Section VI ofthis Stipulation is intended to limit City defendant's ability or obligation to act in accordance with the recertification provisions of
7 C.F.R. $ 273.14.
(a) ACTIONS DEFENDANTS WILL TAKE WHERE PUBLIC ASSISTANCE FOOD STAMP CASES ARE CLOSED DUE TO RECEIPT OF SSI BETWEEN THE DATE
THIS STIPULATION 1s SO ORDERED AND THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THIS
AGREEMENT
51. For each SSI recipient living alone, SSI couple and SSI recipient living with others whose public assistance case is closed due to receipt of SSI from the date this Stipulation is So

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER
Ordered to the expiration of this agreement, a separate determination of food stamp eligibility will
be made such that eligible households will be issued food stamp benefits for each month remaining
in their certificationperiod.
52. SSI recipients living alone, SSI couples and SSI recipients living with others for whom a separate determination is made pursuant to paragraph 5 1 of this Stipulation shall receive
notice of the cbange in their Food Stamps in accordance with 18N.Y.C.R.R. 5 358-3.3.
(b) TROUBLESHOOTER COMPLAINTS
53. During the duration of this Stipulation, City defendant shall designate a fhx line to receive troubleshooter complaints on behalfof people who allege that their food stamp benefits have been terminated due to the receipt of SSI. Plaintiffs' counsel shall not disclose the number
of the troubleshooter fax line to members of the general public. All troubleshooter complaints
shall be submitted to this fax line by plaintiffs' counsel. Complaints shall be submitted on a form prepared jointly by the parties. City defendant shall investigate and report the outcome of the investigation and the resolution, if any, to p l a i n t s ' counsel within ten business days. City defendant shall identrfLa staff member in the O 6 c e of Legal Affairs who will act as liaison to plaintiffs' counsel on all troubleshooter complaints and shall provide the liaison's telephone number to plaintiffs' counsel.
54. Nothing in paragraph 53 of this Stipulation shall be construed to limit the right of class members whose PAIFS cases are closed due to receipt of SSI on or after the date this Stipulation is So Ordered to pursue administrative fair hearings and judicial review thereof as
provided in Social Services Law 9 22(9) to resolve their individual claims of entitlement to food
stamps.
(C) MONITORTNG PROSPECTIVE RELIEF
55. Tracking Report: While this agreement is in effect, City defendant will produce a quarterly Tracking Report o f PA/FS cases that closed due to the receipt of SSI using closing codes 235, E34, or any successor codes. The Tracking Report will reflect activity in the three-month period that ended three m o n t h before the report is issued. The first Tracking Report will be issued a1 the end of the second quarter after the Court So Orders this Stipulation.
(A) The Tracking Report will sort the cases by living arrangement code as follows: 1) SSI single iiving alone (MA);2) SSI couples; 3) SSI Recipients Living With Others (A/B).
(B) For each case that closed during the three-month period under consideration, the Tracking Rcport will show the following information:
I ) PAES case number;

05/24/2007 1 6 : 2 2 FAX 212 533 4598

URBAN J U S T I C E CENTER

a 017/030

2) date of PA closing;
3) whether NPA food stamps were authorized fiom the first day of the month following
the month after the PA/FS case closed;
4) NPA FS case number; and
5) for each case in which NPA food stamps were not authorized from the first day of the month following the month after the PA food stamp case closed, an explanation of the reason that benefits were not so authorized, where one exists, with appropriate back up documents supponing the explanation.
56. City defendant will systematically select a random sample of 3 10 cases fiom the cases listed in the quarterly Tracking Report. Living arrangement codes will be represented in the sample as follows: M A singles: 100 cases; A/A singles (manual): 75 cases; AIA couples (manual) 25 cases; A/B living with others: 110 cases. For each case in the Sample, City defendant will report whether a notice of the new food stamp benefit amount was sent, and will report the date the notice was sent. City defendant will provide a copy of the notice, or a computer generated equivalent, subject to redaction of the case name.
57. If, between the date this Stipulation is So Ordered and the expiration date of this agreement, defendants change the WMS codes used to close a public assistance case due to receipt of SSI, defendants will n o t e plaintiffs' counsel of such change within thrty (30) days of making such change.
58. As of the date this Stipulation is So Ordered by the Court, all claims raised by the named individual plaintiffs, on their own behalf and on behalf of the class they represent, that defendants discontinued their public assistance food stamps without making a separate determination a s to their eiigibiiity for non-public assistance food stamps are hereby resolved and
settled, and aU remedies sought in the complaint concerning said discontinuance and hilure to
make a separate determination are limited to the terms of this Stipulation. All other claims raised in the complaint are withdrawn without prejudice to the right of class members to raise them in a separate proceeding.
59. As of the date this Strpulation is so ordered by the Court, the jurisdiction of this Court shall terminate for all purposes except that the Court shall maintain continuing jurisdiction over t h s action for the purpose of decid~ngmotions for enforcement, subject to paragraph 62 of this Stipulation.
I
60. The jurisdiction of this Court shall terminate at the conclusion of twenty-seven (27) month following the date the Stipulation is So Ordered by this Court unless plaintiffs move

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 2 2 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4598

URBAN JUST1 C E C E N T E R

pursuant to paragaph'62 of tlus Stipulation. At the time of termination of jurisdiction, ail claims
arising under the terms of tb Stipulation shaU be deemed dismissed. If plaintifFs move pursuant
to paragraph 62 of this Stipulation,jurisdiction shall continue until: a. the motion is decided; b, if
the motion is decided favorably for plaintiffs, until such time as directed by the Court; or c. such
time as may be extended by the parties in a modification of this Settlement.
61. Defendants shall be deemed to have complied with the terms of this Stipulation, as articulated in paragraphs 1 through 57, so long as any f a k e to comply is individual or isolated, and not significant and widespread or recurring.
62. During the twenty-seven months following the date this Court So Orders this Stipulation, ifplaintif&' counsel believes that defendants have failed to comply, as defined by paragraph 61 above, with the terms of this Stipulation,plaintfi' counsel shall not@ defendants' counsel in writing of the nature and specifics of the alleged fiilure to comply with the terms and shall specfi the monitoring reports, if any, upon which such a belief is based, at least forty five (45) days before any motion is made for enforcement of this Stipulation or for contempt. Unless otherwise resolved, the parties' counsel shall meet within the 45 day period following notice to defendants' counsel in an attempt to anive at a resolution of the claims. If no resolution is reached within 45 days fkom the date of notice, plaintiffs may move this court for an order for all appropriate relief against the noncompliant defendant.
63. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 62, plaintiffs may move this court for an order for all appropriate relief against the noncompliant defendant without waiting 45 days if plaintiffs' motion is based in whole or in part on information contained in a monitoringreport provided by defendants less than 45 days before the date.that the jurisdiction of this court is due , to lapse pursuant to p a r a ~ p 6h0 of this Stipulation.
64. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 61 of t h s Stipulation, after complying with the provisions of paragraph 62 of this Stipulation, plaintif% may bring a motion for enforcement against the noncompliant defendant based on a single violation of provisions of this Stipulation requiring the provision of monitoring reports.
VJII. GENERAL PROWSIONS
65. This Stipulation constitutes the parties' entire agreement and its provisions resolve this action in its entirety as to the named plaintiffs and the certified class. For the duration of this Stipulation, defendants have no additional obligations with respect to the matters settled herein, and Plaintiffs and the certified class shall not impose, nor seek to impose, nor bring any suit that seeks to mpose, any additional systemic obhgations upon defendants with respect to the matters settled herein.
66. Upon the Court's approvai of this Stipulation as fair, reasonable and adequate, plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of each member of the Class, and on behalf of the respective

05/24/2007 1 6 : 2 3 FAX 212 533 4598

URBAN J U S T I C E CENTER

019/030

heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives. successors and assigns of each of

i

I

themselves and each of the members o r the Class, hereby jointly and severallyrelease and forever

1

discharge, on the merits with p r e j u d i ~City defendant, including without limitations its past and present officials, employees, departments, agencies, representatives, directors and agents, their successors and assigns and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, personal representatives, and transferees, and State defendant, its past and present officials, employees, departments, agencies, representatives, directors, agents, their successors and assigns and their

I
I I

respective heirs, executors, administrators, and transferees (collectively"the releasees") and each

of them, of and fiom any and all claims, actions, costs, expenses and attorneys' and expert fees,

I
I

i

except as provided in Section LX of this Stipulation, whether known o r unknown,foreseen or

j

unforeseen, matured or unrnatured, accrued or not accrued, direct or indirect, fiom the beginning

I

of time through the date of Court approval of this Stipulation that the named plaintfls and the members of the class, and each of them, ever had, now has or have, or can, shall or may hereafter

I

have against the releasees or any of them, either alone or in any combination with others, for, by

reason of, involving, concerning, arising fiom or in any way relating to any claim contained within

the complaint and not withdrawn pursuant to paragraph 58 of this Stipulation.

67. All parties to this Stipulation have participated in its drafting; consequently, any ambiguity shall not be construed for or against any party.

68. If any date or period of time described in this Stipulation fills or cnds on a public holiday or on a weekend, the date or period of time shall be extended to the next busiaess day.

69. Plaintiffs' counsel shall protect the coddentiaIity of all information concerning an individual class member that is provided by the defendants under the terms of this Stipulation and shall not disclose such information to any individual, other than the defendants and any individual whose case is involved, except to the extent necessary in any proceeding brought before this Court to enforce any right that individual may have under this Stipulation.

70. T ~ LSStipulation is final and binding upon the parties, their successors, and their assigns.

71. All monitoring reports provided pursuant to this Stipulation shall be provided in paper and electronic fonnat.

72. State defendant wdl retain the data upon which it relied to conduct the MRB descn'bed in Section IV of this Stipulation and to CREATE the reports to plaintiffs' counsel pursuant to paragraphs 43,44 and 45 of this Stipulalion for one year aaftr the reports described in parapaphs 43, 44 and 45 of this Stipulation are sent to plaintiffs' counsel.

53. City defendant will retain data reasonably necessary to determine whether the information in the Tracking Report and the Sample, provided pursuant to paragraphs 55 and 56 of this Stipulation, is accurate. Such data shall be retained for two years beyond the monitoring

-~ 0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 2 4 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JlJSTI CE CENTER

period provided in Section V1 of this Stipulation : or until the Court's jurisdiction terminates
pursuant to paragraph 60, whchever f i s t occurs.
74. Any notice, report or communication required by or made pursuant to the terms of
this Stipulation, other than notices sent to individual class members, shall be sent by first class nmd, postage prepaid, and by electronic mail, to all of the people listed below:

William Lienhard, Esq. Urban Justice Center 666 Broadway New York, New York 10012 Email: wlienhard@urbanjustice.org

To the City defendant:

Kimberly Conway, Esq. Assistant Corporation Counsel Office of the Corporation Counsel
100 Church Street New York, New York 10007 Ernail: kconway@law.nyc.gov

David Lock, Esq. Deputy General Counsel Office of Legal Mairs 180 Water Street New Y orlc, new York 10038
lockd@hra.nyc.gov

To the State defendant:

Robert L. Kmfi, Esq. Assistant Attorney General OBce of the Attorney General 120 Broadway, 24th Floor New York, New York 10271
Ernail: robert.krafi@oag.state.ny.us

John D i B a i .Esq.
Associate Attorney Office of Temporary and Disability assistance 40 North Pearl Street Albany, New York 12243
john.diiari@ot&.state.ny.us.

75, Any party may change the above designated addressee or address by written notice to the other parties. A copy of such notice shaU be filed with the Clerk of this Court.

IX. ATTORNEY'S FEES

76. The plaintiffs, on behall'ofthernselves and the class they represent, hereby agree that
the settlement descried in Section IX of this Stipulation fully satisfies their claim for attorneys'
fees, costs and disbursements payable to plaintiffs' counsel by each defendant.

05/24/2007 1 6 : 2 4 FAX 212 5 3 3 4598

URBAN J U S T l C E CENTER

[m021/030

77. State defendant agrees to pay the sum of one hundred seventeen thousand five
hundred dollars and no cents ($117,500.00) to plaintiffs' counsel as described more M y in Section IX of this Stipulation in fbll settlement of all of plaintiffs' claims against State defendant
for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements in or arising fiom'this action, accrued or incurred in
the past or in the future by plaintiffs' counsel as follows:
(A) State defendant agrees to cause payment to be issued to The Urban Justice Center in
the sum of one hundred seven thousand five hundred dollars and no cents ($107,500.00).
(B) State defendant agrees to cause payment to be issued to Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP in the sum of ten thousand d o h s and no cents ($10,000.00).
(C) In the event a payment described in paragraphs 77(A) or 77(B) of this Stipulation is not made by delivering a check payable to plaintiffs' counsel within one hundred twenty (120) days of State defendant's counsel's receipt of a So Ordered copy ofthis Stipulation that has been entered, and a signed release, interest shall accrue at the statutory rate
prescriied by 28 U.S.C. 4 1961 commencing on the one hundred twenty-fist (121") day.
78. Payment of the amounts set forth in paragraph 77(A) and 77(B) of this Stipulation shall be made from the New York Public Officers Law Section 17 fund and shall be subject to the approval of all appropriate officials of the State of New York in accordance with the provisions for indemnification under New York Public Officers Law § 17(3)(a).
79. City defendant agrees to pay the sum of one hundred twenty thousand and no cents
($120,000.00) to plaintiffs' counsel as described more hlly in Section IX of this Stipulation in full
settlement of all of plaintiffs' claims which have been raised or could have been raised against City defendant for attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements in or arising fiorn this action, accrued or incurred in the past or in the future by plaint&' counsel as follows:
(A) City defendant agrecs to cause payment to be issued to The Urban Justice Center in the sum of one hundred twenty thousand dollars and no cents ($120,000.00).
(B) In the event the payment descnkd in paragraph 79(A) of this Stipulation is not made bidelivering a check payable to the Urban Justice Center w i t h one hundred twenty (i20) days of City defendant's counsel's receipt of a So Ordered copy of this Stipulation that bas been entered, interest shall accrue at the statutory rate prescribed by 28 U.S.C.
4 1961 commencing on the one hundred twenty-first (12Ifi)day.
80. Notwithstanding tbe provisions of Paragraphs 77 and 79 above, nothing in this Stipulation shall be construed to limit plaintas' right to make an application to the Court for fees incurred in connection with any motion made pursuant to Paragraphs 62, 63, or 64 of this Stipulation.

0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 0 7 1 6 : 2 5 FAX 2 1 2 5 3 3 4 5 9 8

URBAN JUSTICE CENTER

@022/030

81. Payment of the amounts set forth in paragraphs 77 and 79 of this Stipulation shall be
subject to the cooperation of plaintiffs' counsel in executing any documents required to process
such payments by each defendant.
82. Each defendant is solely liable for the amount attributed to it, and neither defendant is jointly or severally liable for the amount that the other defendant has agreed to pay. Nothing herein shall obligate State defendant to bear any portion of any liability attributed to City defendant for plaintfls' attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, whether covered by t b Stipulation or incurred in the future. Nothing herein shall obligate City defendant to bear any portion of any liability attributed to State defendant for plaintiffs' attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements, whether covered by this Stipulation or incurred in the future.
83. Upon execution of t b Stipulation, plaintiffb' counsel shall execute General Releases in the forms annexed hereto as Exhibits A and B, releasing State defendant. Exhibit A shall be held in escrow by counsel for State defendant And shall not be effective until the Urban Justice Center is in receipt of the entire settlement amount set forth in Paragraph 77(A) above. Exhibit B shall be held in escrow by counsel for State defendant and shall not be effective until Patterson Belkmp Webb & Tyler LLP is in receipt of the entire settlement amount set forth in Paragraph 77(B) above.
84. Upon execution of this Stipulation, p l a i n t s ' counsel shaU execute a General Release in the form annexed hereto as Exhibit C releasing City defendant. Exhibit c shall be held In escrow by counsel
for City defendant and shall not be effective until the Urban Justice
Center 1s in receipt of the entire settlement amount set forth in Paragraph 79 above.
85. Nothing contained in this Stipulation shall be deemed to be an agreement or an admission by either defendant as to the reasonableness of the number of hours spent or the particular hourly rates claimed by plaintiffs' counsel or that plaintiffs will be entitled to any allorneys' fees, costs or disbursements in connection with this action in the future, and neither defendant waives any defenses to any application by plaintfi or plaintiffs' counsel therefor.
86. The agreement regarding payment of attorneys' fees, costs and disbursements set forth in Section IX of this Stipulation is solely for the purpose of settlement in this action and does not reflect the positions of the parties in any other judicial or administrative proceeding.
Nothing contained in section IX of thls Stipulation shall be deemed, implied or construed to be a
policy, custom or procedure of State defendant, the State of New York or any of its agencies, or City defendant, the City of New York or any of its agencies.
87. Section IX of this Stipulation contains all of the terms and conditions agreed on by the parties regarding the payment by each defendant of attorneys' f-s, costs and disbursements in this litigation to plaintiffs' counsel. No oral agreement entered into at any time nor any other written agreement entered into prior to the execution of this Stipulation shall be deemed to exist,
to bind the parties, or to vary the tenns and conditions set forth in Section IX of this Stipulation.

05/24/2007 1 6 : 2 5 FAX 212 533 4598

URBAN J U S T I C E CENTER

Dated: New York, New York December 18,2006
Urban Justice Center Attorney for Plaintif%s

Gibson Dunn & Crutcher LLP Attorney for Plaint&

666 Broadway, 10h Floor New York, New York W 1 2 (646) 602-5667
ELIOT SPITZER, Attorney General of the State of New York
. A t t o m r State Defendant
By: [RK-54181
120 Broadway 24"' Floor New York, New York 10271 (212) 416-8632

2064ark Avenue NewYork, New York 10166-0193 (212) 351-4000
MICHAEL A CARDOZO, Corporation Counsel of the City of New York Attorney for Cijy Defendant
By: G & e r l y Conway [KC-)436 Assistant ~or~oration*Counsel 100 Church Street, 20dFloor New York, New York 10007 (2 12) 788-0865

Dated:

 
 CLOSED, MEDT1
U.S. District Court United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (Foley
Square) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 1:02−cv−02498−RMB−KNF

Harris, et al v. Eggleston, et al Assigned to: Judge Richard M. Berman Referred to: Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox Demand: $0 Cause: 07:2011 Food Stamp Act of 1964
Plaintiff

Date Filed: 04/01/2002 Date Terminated: 02/07/2007 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 444 Civil Rights: Welfare Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Barbara Harris on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated

represented by David F. Dobbins , Sr Patterson, Belknap, Webb &Tyler LLP 1133 Avenue of the Americas New York , NY 10036 (212) 336−2800 Fax: (212) 336−2829 Email: dfdobbins@pbwt.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Erica Kart Rosenthal Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP (NYC) 200 Park Avenue 48th floor New York , NY 10166 (212) 351−4084 Fax: (212) 351−6284 Email: erosenthal@gibsondunn.com LEAD ATTORNEY

James Walden Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP 200 Park Avenue 48th Floor New York , NY 10166 (212) 351−4000 Fax: (212) 351−5236 LEAD ATTORNEY

Oliver Michael Olanoff Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP (NYC) 200 Park Avenue 48th floor New York , NY 10166 (212) 351−3823 Fax: (212) 351−6292 Email: oolanoff@gibsondunn.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Robert L Weigel Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP (NYC) 200 Park Avenue 48th floor New York , NY 10166 (212) 351−3845 Fax: (212) 351−5236 Email: rweigel@gibsondunn.com LEAD ATTORNEY

Plaintiff

William Brown on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Plaintiff Barbara Marroquin
Plaintiff Maria Ojeda on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated

represented by David F. Dobbins , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Erica Kart Rosenthal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James Walden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Oliver Michael Olanoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert L Weigel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by David F. Dobbins , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Erica Kart Rosenthal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James Walden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Oliver Michael Olanoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert L Weigel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
represented by David F. Dobbins , Sr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Erica Kart Rosenthal (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
James Walden (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Oliver Michael Olanoff (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY
Robert L Weigel (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY

V. Defendant Verna Eggleston in her official capacity as the Commissioner of The City of New York Human Resources Administration
Defendant Brian J. Wing in his official capacity as the Commissioner of the State of New York Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance

represented by Robert Lewis Kraft Office of the Attorney General, New York State 120 Broadway New York , NY 10271 212−416−8632 Fax: 212−416−6075 Email: robert.kraft@oag.state.ny.us ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Robert Lewis Kraft (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed 04/01/2002
04/01/2002 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/03/2002 04/05/2002
04/05/2002 04/05/2002
04/05/2002
04/11/2002
04/11/2002 04/11/2002

# Docket Text
1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT filed. Summons issued and Notice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c). FILING FEE $ 150.00 RECEIPT # 434725. (dle) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
CASE REFERRED TO Judge William H. Pauley as possibly related to 1:98cv887. (dle) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
2 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Richard M. Berman . Copy of notice and judge's rules mailed to Attorney(s) of record: David F. Dobbins . (dle) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox is so designated. (dle) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
Case referred as related to 98cv887 and declined by Judge William H. Pauley and returned to wheel for assignment. (dle) (Entered: 04/04/2002)
3 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE by Barbara Harris, William Brown, Barbara Marroquin, and Maria Ojeda; Show Cause Hearing set for 3:00 p.m. on 4/11/02; for preliminary injunction against defendants pursuant to Rule 65 of the FRCP . ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
MEMO−ENDORSEMENT on doc. #3; parties to "meet &confer" forthwith to pursue non−litigation resolution of all Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
4 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE; Show Cause Hearing set for 3:00 p.m. on 4/11/02. For an order pursuant to Rule 34(b) of the FRCP should not be issued directing the parties to engage in expedited discovery . ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
MEMO−ENDORSEMENT on doc. #4; parties to meet &confer forthwith i.e. before 5 p.m. on 4/8/02 . ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 04/08/2002)
5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons, class action complaint, orders to show cause, memorandums of law as to Verna Eggleston by Shaniqua Carr, process clerk on 4/3/02 . Answer due on 4/23/02 for Verna Eggleston . (yv) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of Orders to Show Cause as to Verna Eggleston by Shaniqua Carr, process clerk on 4/3/02 . . (yv) (Entered: 04/16/2002)
5 AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE of summons, class action complaint, orders to show cause and memorandums in support of motions as to Brian J. Wing by Stephanie M. Rosenberg, managing attorney and Ronald Speier, assitant counsel on 4/4/02 Answer due on 4/24/02 for Brian J. Wing (yv) Modified on 04/16/2002 (Entered: 04/16/2002)

05/14/2002
05/21/2002 05/23/2002 05/31/2002 06/04/2002 06/10/2002 07/03/2002
10/31/2002
11/14/2002 11/18/2002
11/22/2002
12/30/2002 12/30/2002 12/30/2002

6 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Judge Berman from Bill Lienhard, dated 5/12/02. Re: plaintiffs write regarding the areas of agreement and disagreement and communicating with the US Department of Agriculture. Thanks. I was thinking of identifying &solving. Good start. Keep going . ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 05/20/2002)
7 Order that case be referred to the Clerk of Court for assignment to a Magistrate Judge for General Pretrial/After Initial Case Management Conference held by District Judge. Referred to Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ) (cd) (Entered: 05/23/2002)
8 Order referring action to the Clerk to assign the above−entitled action to mediation. All issues are eligible ( signed by Judge Richard M. Berman ) (cd) (Entered: 05/24/2002)
9 Notice of selection of mediator. (sc) (Entered: 05/31/2002)
10 ORDER, regarding the Court's decision on the controversy concerning the text of a proposed confidentiality stipulation . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies mailed. (kw) (Entered: 06/05/2002)
11 Transcript of record of proceedings before Judge Richard M. Berman for the date(s) of April 11, 2002. (jb) (Entered: 06/12/2002)
12 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Magistrate Judge Fox from Megan Lewis, dated 7/1/02: The definition of "confidential information" set forth on pages one through two of this writing shall govern the disclosure of documents made by the parties to the proposed stipulation. However, the underscored word "explicitly" that appears in the last line of the first page of this writing shall be deleted from definition. The Court finds that it would be economical and efficient to have one protective order concerning confidential material govern a particular litigation. Therefore, the terms of the proposed stipulation will extend to all relevant material exchanged by the stipulation signatories. The Court commends to the parties' attention Standing Order M−10−468 of this Court, dated 10/5/01, which pertains to sealed records filed with the Clerk of Court . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies mailed. (tp) (Entered: 07/09/2002)
13 ORDER, A telephone conference shall be held on 11/12/02 at 12:30 p.m. The telephone conference shall be initiated by plaintiffs' counsel to (212) 805−6705. Any request for adjournment of the conference must be made in writing, at least 48 hours before the scheduled conference and must indicate alternative dates. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies mailed by Chambers. (sb) (Entered: 11/04/2002)
Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. (kw) (Entered: 12/09/2002)
14 ORDER, On or before 11/21/02, plaintiffs shall serve and file any motion to compel disclosure; on or before 12/3/02, the State defendant shall serve and file a response to the motion; and on or before 12/11/02, plaintiffs shall serve and file any reply. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies faxed by Chambers. (sb) (Entered: 11/19/2002)
15 Memo−Endorsement on letter addressed to Magistrate Judge Fox from Megan Lewis, dated 11/21/02. Re:, granting counsel for plaintiffs request to withdraw their request to file a motion to compel, without prejudice to our ability to renew our request should plaintiffs decide that is necessary . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); (dle) (Entered: 11/26/2002)
16 Memorandum to Docket Clerk:, that a telephone conference was held before Judge Berman on 12/30/02 . (pl) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
Telephone Conference held before Judge Richard M. Berman . (pl) (Entered: 12/31/2002)
Telephone Conference set at 9:30 1/30/03 before Judge Richard M. Berman . (pl) (Entered: 12/31/2002)

05/16/2003
06/13/2003 06/24/2003 06/26/2003 05/13/2004 05/17/2004 05/21/2004 06/01/2004 07/08/2005
10/07/2005
12/14/2005
01/12/2006
02/23/2006 02/24/2006 02/24/2006 03/21/2006
03/22/2006

17 ORDER: that a telephonic conference shall be held in this action on 6/12/03 at 12:00 p.m. Any request for an adjournment of the conference must be in writing, at least 48 hrs before the scheduled conference, and must indicate at least two alternate dates when the parties will be available. ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies mailed by Chamber (sac) (Entered: 05/19/2003)
18 ORDER, reset telephone conference for 11:00 a.m. on 6/24/03 . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); Copies mailed by chambers. (kw) (Entered: 06/16/2003)
Status Conference held before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. (kw) (Entered: 07/03/2003)
19 ORDER; that counsel to the plaintiff shall advise the undersinged, in writing when the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture has completed its review . ( signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox ); (pl) (Entered: 06/30/2003)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox : Status Conference held on 5/13/2004. (kw, ) (Entered: 05/21/2004)
20 NOTICE of Appearance by Robert Lewis Kraft on behalf of Brian J. Wing (nite dep. box)(pa, ) (Entered: 05/18/2004)
21 ORDER; that the parties shall advise the undersigned in a joint writing, of the status of this action on or before 7/13/04. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/20/04) Copies faxed by chambers.(pl, ) (Entered: 05/25/2004)
22 ORDER: the parties shall advise the Court in a joint writing of the status of this action by 7/13/04. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 5/20/04) (kw, ) (Entered: 06/02/2004)
23 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Fox from Robert L. Kraft dated 6/29/05 re: response to the Court's request for a status report. The parties shall, on or before, 9/30/2005, provide the Court a written status report concerning this action (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 7/1/05) (yv, ) (Entered: 07/11/2005)
24 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox from Robert L. Kraft. ENDORSEMENT: On or before November 30, 2005 the parties shall provide the Court with a written status report concerning this action. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 10/6/2005) (lb, ) (Entered: 10/11/2005)
25 ORDER: Telephone Conference set for 1/11/2006 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The telephonic conference shall be initiated by counsel to the plaintiffs to (212)805−6705. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 12/13/2005) Copies Faxed By Chambers.(lb, ) (Entered: 12/14/2005)
26 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that, on or before 2/17/20006, the parties shall advise the Court, in writing, whether the litigation has been resolved. If not, on or before 2/24/2006, the defendants shall serve and file their answer. Thereafter, a schedule will be fixed for the parties to complete all activities necessary for them to proceed to trial. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 1/12/2006) (lb, ) (Entered: 01/17/2006)
27 ORDER the application for an enlargement of time made by the defendants, in a writing dated February 21,2006, is denied. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 2/21/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 02/24/2006)
28 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Verna Eggleston.(dle, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
29 ANSWER to Complaint. Document filed by Verna Eggleston, Brian J. Wing.(dle, ) (Entered: 02/28/2006)
30 ORDER; a telephonic conference will be held in the above−captioned action on March 21, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. The telephonic conference shall be initiated by counsel to the plaintiffs to (212) 805−6705. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 3/17/06) (djc, ) (Entered: 03/22/2006)
31 ORDER that all discovery of whatever nature shall be initiated so as to be completed on or before 9/21/06; a telephonic status conference will be held with the parties on

03/22/2006 06/23/2006 07/06/2006 07/10/2006
08/04/2006
11/03/2006 11/14/2006 11/15/2006
11/15/2006 12/19/2006 02/07/2007
02/15/2007
03/20/2007

7/6/06 at 2:00 p.m.;counsel to the plaintiffs shall initiate the telephonic conference on that date. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 3/21/06) (dle, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
Set Deadlines/Hearings: Discovery due by 9/21/2006. Telephone Conference set for 7/6/2006 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. (dle, ) (Entered: 03/23/2006)
32 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Kevin N. Fox from Kimberly Conway dated 6/16/06. ENDORSEMENT: The instant application will be addressed with the parties on July 6, 2006, during the telephonic status conference. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 6/21/06) (js, ) (Entered: 06/26/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox : Telephone Conference held on 7/6/2006. (jmi, ) (Entered: 08/09/2006)
33 ORDER: It is hereby ordered that on or before 7/20/2006, the parties shall advise the Court, in writing, of the status of the negotiations respecting a resolution of the controversy surrounding the payment of attorney's fees. The request made to the Court that discovery be stayed, is denied. (Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 7/10/2006) Copies Faxed By Chambers.(lb, ) (Entered: 07/11/2006)
34 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Mag. Judge Kevin N. Fox from Elissa Rossi dated 8/2/06 re: The parties shall suspend their discovery activities until 10/2/06. The parties are to request that USDA complete its review reasonably so as to avoid any need by the parties to make an additional requests of this ilk.. (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 8/4/06) (pl, ) (Entered: 08/07/2006)
35 ORDER Telephone Conference set for 11/14/2006 at 02:00 PM before Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox. The telephonic conference shall be initiated by counsel to the plaintiffs to (212)805−6705. So Ordered (Signed by Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox on 11/3/2006) (jmi, ) (Entered: 11/06/2006)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox : Telephone Status Conference held on 11/14/2006. (jar, ) (Entered: 12/06/2006)
36 ORDER: by 12/18/06, parties shall submit to the Court, for its review, their joint pre−trial order. That document must conform to the requirements for such an order that are set forth in the Individual Rules off Practice of the assigned district judge. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 11/14/06) Copies Faxed by Chambers.(db, ) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
Set/Reset Deadlines: Joint Pretrial Order due by 12/18/2006. (db, ) (Entered: 11/16/2006)
37 LETTER addressed to Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox from Robert Kraft dated 12/18/06 re: counsel for dfts request the court to schedule a status conference. Document filed by Verna Eggleston, Brian J. Wing.(dle, ) (Entered: 12/22/2006)
38 ORDER OF DISCONTINUANCE: It is hereby ordered that the above entitled action be, and the same hereby is, discontinued provided, however, that within 45 days of the date of this order, counsel for plaintiffs and/or Defendants may upon good cause shown apply by letter for restoration of the action. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 2/7/07) (js) (Entered: 02/08/2007)
39 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Jim Walden dated 2/14/07 re: counsel for plaintiffs request that the court enter a slightly modified order for the reasons set forth herein. Plaintiffs' objection to the Mag. Judge's discovery ruling is denied (as moot) but without prejudice during any subsequent proceeding in tis case.. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 2/15/07) (dle) (Entered: 02/20/2007)
42 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Berman from Jim Walden dated 3/19/07 re request that the court extend its deadline for restoration of the action for an additional 60 days: application granted (but its still unclear to me why it's needed in this 2002 case.) (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 3/19/07) (cd) (Entered: 03/21/2007)

05/25/2007
06/12/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/11/2007 07/12/2007 07/13/2007
07/25/2007 07/30/2007
08/10/2007

43 ENDORSED LETTER: addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP. dated 5/23/07 re: addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Gibson, Dunn &Crutcher LLP. dated 5/23/07 re: Request the Court restore the case for the limited purpose of approving and implementing this class action settlement as provided by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) furthermore, we ask that the Court schedule a conference at the Court's convenience to discuss steps necessary for the implementation of the notice and fairness hearing. ENDORSEMENT: Conference on 6/12/07 at 9:00 a.m. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 5/25/07) (js) (Entered: 05/29/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman : Settlement Conference held on 6/12/2007. Motions due by 7/26/2007., Settlement Conference set for 7/12/2007 at 09:30 AM − 30 day conf. for prelim. approval of settlement., Fairness Hearing set for 9/27/07 at 9:30am before Judge Richard M. Berman. (tro) (Entered: 06/14/2007)
44 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY Approve of Class Action Settlement.(Return Date set for 9/27/2007 at 09:30 AM.), MOTION to Certify Class. Document filed by Barbara Harris, William Brown, Barbara Marroquin, Maria Ojeda.(mbe) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
45 MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support of re: 44 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION Approve of Class Action Settlement. MOTION to Certify Class. Document filed by Barbara Harris, William Brown, Barbara Marroquin, Maria Ojeda. (mbe) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
46 DECLARATION of Oliver M. Olanoff in Support re: 44 PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION AND PRELIMINARY Approve of Class Action Settlement. MOTION to Certify Class. Document filed by Barbara Harris, William Brown, Barbara Marroquin, Maria Ojeda. (mbe) (Entered: 07/12/2007)
47 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE of Plaintiff's Memorandum of Law in Support, Notice of Motion for Class Certification served on Robert L. Kraft, Kimberly Conway on 7/10/07. Service was made by Mail. Document filed by Barbara Harris, William Brown, Barbara Marroquin, Maria Ojeda. (tro) (Entered: 07/13/2007)
Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Richard M. Berman : Pretrial Conference for preliminary approval of settlement held on 7/12/07. Order signed. (kco) (Entered: 07/31/2007)
48 ORDER PRELIMINARILY CERTIFYING CLASS AND PRELIMINARILY APPROVING SETTLEMENT BETWEEN THE PLAINTIFFS AND DEFENDANTS; for the purpose of settlement, the action is preliminarily certified as a class action on behalf of the following persons as stated in this order. Barbara Harris and Barbara Marroquin are preliminarily certified as representatives of the class. The terms of the settlement are hereby preliminarily approved. A Fairness hearing shall be held on 9/27/2007at 9:30 AM before the Honorable Richard M. Berman.(Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/12/07) (kco) (Entered: 07/17/2007)
49 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 6/12/07 before Judge Richard M. Berman. (jbe) (Entered: 07/25/2007)
50 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Jim Walden dated 7/26/07 re: Request that the Court approve the proposed form of notice and the Proposed Notice enclosed herein as Exhibits A and C to the proposed order. ENDORSEMENT: The Court is directing counsel to meet and confer and submit a joint notice by noon on 7/31/07. Counsels' inability to resolve open issues jointly and professionally is becoming a little tedious and has hampered timely resolution on behalf of the class. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 7/30/07) (cd). (Entered: 07/31/2007)
51 ENDORSED LETTER addressed to Judge Richard M. Berman from Robert L. Weigel dated 8/7/2007 re: request that the Court approve the Settlement as negotiated by the parties. ENDORSEMENT: The Court approves the proposed settlement preliminarily (with the notice language changes submitted) and is moving forward to the fairness hearing. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 8/9/2007) (jar) (Entered: 08/13/2007)

09/27/2007 10/09/2007

52 JUDGMENT approving class action settlement and dismissing action. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 9/27/07) (ml) (Entered: 09/28/2007)
53 STIPULATION OF SETTLEMENT AND ORDER Defendants will perform the acts described in this Stipulation if the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture ("Secretary") formally acquiesces to the terms of this Stipulation based on the Secretary's authority under 7 U.S.C. § 2022(a) "to determine the amount of and settle and adjust my claim... arising under the provisions of this act or the regulations issued pursuant to this act...." Within ten (1 0) business days of the execution of this Stipulation, but prior to the submission of this Stipulation to the Court, State defendant will provide all counsel with a draft letter to the Department of Agriculture requesting the Secretary to acquiesce to the terms of this Stipulation. Said letter will, in addition to seeking acquiescence, request that all communications from the Department of Agriculture concerning said request, including but not limited to communications raising my questions concerning the stipulation, be made in writing. In addition State defendant agrees that all communication from State defendant to the Secretary shall be in writing. Plaintiff counsel will have ten (10) business days to provide any comments to State defendant on the contents of the letter seeking acquiescence, and State defendant will consider all comments raised by Plaintiffs' counsel. State defendant will subsequently submit a copy of the Stipulation and a letter to the Department of Agriculture requesting the Secretary to acquiesce to the terms of this Stipulation. State defendant will provide all counsel with copies of all correspondence and documents sent between the Secretary and State defendant concerning this request. for acquiescence. State defendant will allow ail parties five (5) business days to comment on any communications from the Secretary prior to submitting a written response to the written communication from the Secretary and will consider such comments in drafting any response. (Signed by Judge Richard M. Berman on 10/9/2007) (jmi) (Entered: 10/10/2007)