Opinion ID: 457822
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Court's Jurisdiction to Enforce the Decree

Text: 31 The Secretary's jurisdictional contentions are without merit. First, she objects that the decree cannot be enforced because the action itself is moot; second, she objects that the court's Amendment requires enforcement of the decree with respect to persons who are not parties to the action. A. Mootness 32 The Secretary's first contention is that the action must be dismissed for mootness. She argues that the action is moot because Berger--the only named beneficiary still alive 6 --is receiving the SSI benefits he sought in bringing the action. She further argues that no one else is entitled to enforce the decree. In the latter connection, she asserts that persons cannot intervene under Rule 71 to enforce the decree. 33 Under the Secretary's approach, the heart of the decree--p 3--would have been unenforceable at the moment it came into existence. In other words, the Secretary would like to have it both ways: she wants the litigation against her to be concluded based on her agreement--sanctioned by the court--to adopt a given interpretation of a statutory provision and yet, by providing those specifically named in the decree with benefits, she also wants to prevent the court from requiring her to implement this interpretation. 34 For several reasons, we reject the Secretary's approach. We find that the action was not moot as to Berger, and that the persons participating in the enforcement action were entitled to do so under Rule 71. 35 1. The Secretary argues that since Berger is being provided SSI benefits under the decree, he is already receiving all the relief he sought in his action, and that the case is therefore moot as to him. The Secretary, however, misstates the issue. The consent decree entered in this action stipulated that Berger was eligible for SSI benefits, and that he would continue to receive benefits as long as his alienage status continued to make him eligible. Berger asserted that the Secretary was not complying with the decree, and instituted contempt proceedings to enforce the decree. The real question, therefore, is whether, in the face of the Secretary's alleged non-compliance, Berger was entitled to ensure, by means of proceedings to enforce the decree, that he continued to receive benefits, or whether he was precluded from so doing because he had not yet lost those benefits. 7 Thus, the issue is not--as the Secretary contends--whether the action is moot because Berger is currently receiving benefits. Rather, the issue is the ripeness of his claim of noncompliance, i.e., whether the challenged conduct was sufficiently threatening to Berger to justify his invocation of the court's jurisdiction. 8 This question must be answered in the affirmative. 36 It is axiomatic that the judicial power conferred by Art. III may not be exercised unless the plaintiff shows 'that he personally has suffered some actual or threatened injury as a result of the putatively illegal conduct of the defendant.'  Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U.S. 991, 999, 102 S.Ct. 2777, 2783, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982) (quoting Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 99, 99 S.Ct. 1601, 1608, 60 L.Ed.2d 66 (1979)). The Yaretsky Court, however, emphasized that [o]f course, '[o]ne does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief.' Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U.S. 553, 593 [43 S.Ct. 658, 663, 67 L.Ed. 1117] (1923), quoted in Babbitt v. United Farm Workers Nat'l Union, 442 U.S. 289, 298 [99 S.Ct. 2301, 2308, 60 L.Ed.2d 895] (1979). '[T]he question becomes whether any perceived threat to respondents is sufficiently real and immediate to show an existing controversy....'  Yaretsky, 457 U.S. at 1000, 102 S.Ct. at 2784 (quoting O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 496, 94 S.Ct. 669, 676, 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974)). 37 In Yaretsky, petitioners, who were administrators of state agencies, asserted that the Court was without jurisdiction to hear objections by respondents, who were nursing home residents, to certain types of transfers between facilities. Petitioners argued that respondents had obtained complete relief under the consent judgment previously entered in the action, and that since the petitioners themselves had not been threatened with the type of transfer now challenged, they were without standing to object to those transfers. The Court rejected petitioners' argument. In determining that it had jurisdiction to hear respondents' claims, the Court reasoned that the nursing homes in which respondents reside remain free to determine ... that respondents' continued stay at current levels of care is not medically necessary. The possibility that they will do so is not 'imaginary or speculative.'  Id. (quoting Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 42, 91 S.Ct. 746, 749, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971)). The Court also noted that [i]n light of similar determinations made by the committee of physicians chosen by the facilities to make such assessments, the threat is quite realistic. Id. 457 U.S. at 1000-01, 102 S.Ct. at 2784. 38 In the case at bar, the contempt motion was based on evidence of the Secretary's repeated failure to carry out the terms of p 3 of the decree. This failure posed a threat to all those SSI recipients and applicants whose eligibility depended on the color of law provision. A party's noncompliance with certain aspects of a decree is a powerful indication that the party may not feel bound to honor other aspects. See Yaretsky, 457 U.S. at 1000-01, 102 S.Ct. at 2783-84 (citing O'Shea, 414 U.S. at 496, 94 S.Ct. at 676 ([P]ast wrongs are evidence bearing on whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.)). In support of the motion for contempt, the court was presented with documents concerning various individuals who had been improperly denied benefits under the color of law provision. The fact that Berger's benefits had not been terminated is of no moment; under the circumstances, it was not necessary for Berger to wait for the axe to fall on him also before he brought suit. 39 The decree provides Berger with benefits only as long as his immigration status remains that of an alien permanently residing in the United States under color of law.... Under this language, his continued receipt of benefits remains dependent upon the Secretary's interpretation of the color of law provision, and, specifically, on her implementation of the interpretation set forth in p 3. 9 Her alleged noncompliance with p 3 was therefore a significant threat to Berger's interests. 10 Thus, we agree with the district court that the Secretary's failure to properly educate agency staff regarding the eligibility standard under p 3 of the decree posed a threat to Berger that was sufficiently real and immediate to amount to an existing controversy entitling him to enforce the decree. 40 2. Furthermore, under a second line of reasoning, we believe that basic contract principles supported Berger's right to move for enforcement of the decree. The decree is a contract embodying promises made to Berger by the Secretary in exchange for the termination of his action. See Dotson v. United States Dep't of Hous. and Urban Dev., 731 F.2d 313, 318 (6th Cir.1984) (A consent decree ... is ... a contract that has been negotiated by the parties....); see also United States v. Armour & Co., 402 U.S. 673, 681, 91 S.Ct. 1752, 1757, 29 L.Ed.2d 256 (1971). Berger brought suit on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated. Although no class was certified, the Secretary agreed in the decree (1) to provide benefits to the named beneficiaries, and (2) to adopt and apply the interpretation of the color of law provision set forth in p 3. The promise incorporated in p 3 was made to Berger, as promisee. Berger could therefore challenge noncompliance with p 3 and sue to enforce the promise it contained. Moreover, to the extent that he was suing on behalf of third parties benefited by the decree, he was supported by state contract law, since in New York a promisee for the benefit of third parties may enforce the promise on behalf of the third parties. See In re Spong, 661 F.2d 6, 10 (2d Cir.1981); In re O.P.M. Leasing Servs., 21 B.R. 993, 1005 (Bankr.S.D.N.Y.1982); City of New York v. Smith, 279 F.Supp. 866, 869 (S.D.N.Y.1968); see also Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d 1242, 1250 (2d Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. County of Nassau v. Owens, 444 U.S. 980, 100 S.Ct. 483, 62 L.Ed.2d 407 (1979) (considering New York law regarding third party beneficiaries in discussion of contract governed by federal law); cf. Rule 17(a) (a party with whom or in whose name a contract has been made for the benefit of another ... may sue in his own name....). 41 Significantly, this is not a situation in which the plaintiff in an individual action has passed out of the original condition which gave him standing. See Lasky v. Quinlan, 558 F.2d 1133, 1136 (2d Cir.1977) (individual plaintiffs who sought to enforce compliance with a consent decree regarding jail conditions could not do so after they had been released from the jail; they no longer had an interest in the enforcement of the decree). 11 Berger continues to have the same interest in the decree as he had when it was entered into, and the same interest in the suit as he had when it was instituted. He remains a recipient of SSI and is dependent, for the receipt of benefits, on his eligibility pursuant to the color of law provision. 42 Under these circumstances, even if Berger had not shown sufficient threat of injury with respect to his own receipt of benefits, he was entitled to come into court to complain of noncompliance as it affected third parties because the Secretary's promise to benefit third parties was included in a valid contract with him. That is to say, Berger had already been injured by the fact that the Secretary had failed to carry out all of the promises she made to him on behalf of third parties. 43 3. The individuals who sought, under Rule 71 to join in Berger's contempt motion have the right to enforce the decree. 12 Rule 71 provides in pertinent part: When an order is made in favor of a person who is not a party to the action, he may enforce obedience to the order by the same process as if he were a party.... 44 In the instant case, the intervenors properly sought to enforce obedience to a prior order made in their favor. The consent decree is conceded to provide benefits to non-parties. By its terms, the decree provides for a particular construction of the SSI eligibility provision, which construction benefits innumerable applicants who will be entitled to SSI pursuant to the decree. As a practical matter, of course, it would not have been possible to name these past, present and future applicants in the decree. 13 45 Although there is substantial authority for the proposition that a consent decree is not enforceable directly or in collateral proceedings by those who are not parties to it even though they were intended to be benefited by it, Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U.S. 723, 750, 95 S.Ct. 1917, 1932, 44 L.Ed.2d 539 (1975) (citations omitted), we think that this authority was not intended to preclude nonparties from intervening to enforce a consent decree where otherwise authorized by the federal rules of civil procedure. See United States v. American Cyanamid Co., 719 F.2d 558, 564 n. 6 (2d Cir.1983), cert. denied sub nom. American Cyanamid Co. v. Melamine Chemicals, Inc., --- U.S. ----, 104 S.Ct. 1596, 80 L.Ed.2d 127 (1984) (court found that the rule against enforcement of consent decrees by third parties did not apply under the circumstances since, as an intervenor under Rule 24(b), company would be barred from relitigating issues under the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel). 46 In Lasky v. Quinlan, supra, a case in which no class was certified, a contempt proceeding to enforce a consent decree providing for improvements in the county jail was instituted by the original plaintiffs who were no longer in custody in that jail. The court found the action moot as to the original plaintiffs, and rejected the contention that Rule 71 provided a basis on which the original plaintiffs could enforce the decree. The court said, 47 It seems clear that Rule 71 was intended to assure that process be made available to enforce court orders in favor of and against persons who are properly affected by them, even if they are not parties to the action.... While Rule 71 may support a separate action by a present inmate to enforce the order obtained by the plaintiffs, it cannot be used by a party to enforce an order in an action in which he no longer has standing to sue. 48 558 F.2d at 1137. Lasky effectively gave persons who were not original parties a green light to pursue enforcement of the consent decree at issue. Cf. In re Spong, 661 F.2d at 10 (In a third party beneficiary contract, benefits flow to both the promisee and the third party, and either may sue to enforce the contract. Id. (citing New York cases)); Owens v. Haas, 601 F.2d at 1250-51. 49 The Secretary contends that while this language might permit a putative class member to bring a separate action, it does not permit intervention by such persons in a proceeding instituted by a named plaintiff, and thus does not support participation by the intervenors in this case. It is clear, however, that the Secretary misreads this language. Of course, where, as here, plaintiff himself is able to pursue enforcement by means of a contempt proceeding, judicial economy virtually requires that appropriate persons be permitted to intervene under Rule 71. B. Benefits to Nonparties 50 The Secretary's second contention is that the court was without jurisdiction to enter the Amendment because it confers benefits on nonparties. The Secretary points to the fact that no class was certified in this action, and argues that the power of the court does not extend to the granting of relief to any persons other than those named in the decree, since they were the only parties properly before the court. Although the Secretary concedes that the original decree provided for relief to nonparties, she nevertheless asserts that this problem has only now become clear because the district court has ordered injunctive relief in favor of nonparties to effectuate its interpretation of the original consent judgment. The Secretary's argument must be rejected. 51 Plaintiff filed a class complaint. The consent decree was entered, however, prior to certification of a class, as the preamble to the decree specifically acknowledged. When the Secretary raised the absence of class certification on her Rule 59(e) motion below, the plaintiffs made a motion for class certification. The district court ruled that certification was unnecessary, and the motion, untimely. 52 The absence of class certification is not problematic in this case, and does not affect the enforceability of the Amendment or of the decree itself. We agree with the court below that certification of a class was not necessary here since the decree's prospective relief will benefit all members of a proposed class to such an extent that the certification of a class would not further the implementation of the judgment. Davis v. Smith, 607 F.2d 535, 540 (1978), recalled and remanded on other grounds, 607 F.2d 540 (2d Cir.1979); Galvan v. Levine, 490 F.2d 1255, 1261 (2d Cir.1973), cert. denied, 417 U.S. 936, 94 S.Ct. 2652, 41 L.Ed.2d 240 (1974); Feld v. Berger, 424 F.Supp. 1356, 1363 (S.D.N.Y.1976); see also Lasky v. Quinlan, 558 F.2d at 1135; Note, Administrative Agency Intracircuit Nonacquiescence, 85 Colum.L.Rev. 582, 596 & n. 96 (1985). 53 In Feld v. Berger, the court found that class certification would be superfluous where four plaintiffs, residents of nursing homes, sought injunctive and declaratory relief against certain practices and regulations of defendant administrators on the ground that they violated due process principles and applicable federal regulations. The court reasoned, 54 The defendants are public officials charged with compliance with and enforcement of federal as well as state laws. The Court assumes these public officials, mindful of their responsibilities, will apply the determination here made equally to all persons similarly situated. [I]t would be unthinkable that the ... defendants would insist on other actions being brought to vindicate the same rights at issue here. 55 424 F.Supp. at 1363 (footnote omitted) (quoting Vulcan Soc'y v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 490 F.2d 387, 399 (2d Cir.1973)). Similarly, in Galvan v. Levine, a district court's refusal to certify a class was upheld where the defendant had made clear that it underst[ood] the judgment to bind it with respect to all claimants. 490 F.2d at 1261. 56 In this case, it is undisputed that the Secretary agreed, in signing the decree, to confer certain benefits on nonparties. It is clear to this court that, in so doing, she also agreed to the enforcement of the decree in favor of nonparties. Therefore, as in the above-cited cases, certification of a class was unnecessary. 14 57 If the Secretary had objections to the interpretation as set forth in the consent decree, she could have refused to sign the decree in 1978, or challenged the decree on direct appeal. The judgment contained a stipulated interpretation of a statutory provision. It is simply untenable for her to contend at this juncture that because she disagrees with the interpretation in the decree she will not be bound by it except as it affects persons within the Eastern District of New York. 15 58 The Secretary cites cases to the effect that injunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs. See Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702, 99 S.Ct. 2545, 2558, 61 L.Ed.2d 176 (1979). Such cases are not, however, governing where, as here, the defendant consented to the relief provided. Furthermore, the Secretary's position is in direct conflict with her own regulations which provide for nationwide uniformity in eligibility standards for the SSI program. 20 C.F.R. Sec. 416.110(d) (1984). 16 59 In support of her argument on this issue, the Secretary also cites cases pertaining to preliminary injunctive relief; they, too, are inapposite here. They stand for the proposition that because the preliminary injunction is designed to preserve the status quo during litigation to determine the merits of the case, Hollon v. Mathis Indep. School Dist., 491 F.2d 92, 93 (5th Cir.1974) (per curiam), preliminary injunctive relief granted in the absence of class certification may properly cover only the named plaintiffs. National Center for Immigrants Rights v. Immigration and Naturalization Serv., 743 F.2d 1365, 1371 (9th Cir.1984); Hollon, 491 F.2d at 93. Since there has been a final judgment disposing of this action on the consent of the parties, the constraints applicable upon the granting of preliminary extraordinary relief have no relevance here.