Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160/USCOURTS-cand-3_86-cv-06160-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Constitutionality of State Statutes

---

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BEVERLY NEHMER, et al.

Plaintiffs,

v.

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Defendants.

No. C86-6160 TEH 

PRE-HEARING ORDER RE

CLL CLAIMS PROCEDURE

The Court has received and thoroughly reviewed the parties’ responses to the Court’s

August 8, 2006 Order re CLL Claims Procedure. The Court will address the issues raised in

those responses at the in-court hearing scheduled for September 18, 2006 at 2:00 p.m. 

However, one issue calls for immediate response. Defendant has taken the position

repeatedly that the “VA’s adjudication resources remain a zero-sum game,” so that resources

devoted to Nehmer class claims necessarily result in prejudice to non-class veterans. (Def’s

Response, filed 8/14/06, at 8:14-15). The Court rejects this line of argument as inconsistent

with the authority of the Court to order remedies that may increase the level of resources – in

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 376 Filed 08/29/06 Page 1 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

terms of personnel, finances, or otherwise – that a defendant may be required to undertake to

meet its legal obligations under a federal court order. See, e.g., Swann v. CharlotteMecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U.S. 1, 15 (1971); Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d

1080, 1110 (9th Cir. 1986).

Further, in anticipation of the September 18th hearing, the Court orders that the parties

submit a joint pre-hearing statement by September 11, 2006. The statement shall address,

inter alia, the following issues:

1. The current status of defendant’s CLL claims procedure, including the current and

anticipated rates of processing, and whether a workforce of twelve Rating

Veterans Service Representatives (RVSRs), with eight supervisors, is a reasonable

staffing allocation to meet defendant’s legal obligations;

2. All unresolved areas of dispute regarding plaintiffs’ access to information, with

explanations from plaintiffs as to their need for the information and from

defendant as to their reason(s) why access should be denied; the parties shall be

mindful that the Court expects plaintiffs to have reasonable access to information

so that they can make informed judgments as to defendant’s implementation of the

Court’s orders;

3. Whether the Court should appoint a court expert, at defendant’s expense, with full

access to defendant’s records and facilities, to advise the Court as to the efficiency

and reasonableness of defendant’s process and output; and

4. Any other issues the parties believe are relevant to the CLL claims procedure.

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 376 Filed 08/29/06 Page 2 of 3
U

nite

d

State

s

District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

The parties shall be fully prepared to discuss these issues at the September 18th hearing as

well.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: ___________________________________

HON. THELTON E. HENDERSON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:86-cv-06160-WHA Document 376 Filed 08/29/06 Page 3 of 3