Case: A.R. v. Dudek

0:12-cv-60460 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida

Filed Date: March 13, 2012

Case Ongoing

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On March 13, 2012, a number of medically fragile children or children who needed skilled care services filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They sued the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Health, as well as eQHealth, a Louisiana non-profit corporation that contracted with the other defendant entities to make medical necessity determinations. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel, the Florida St…

On March 13, 2012, a number of medically fragile children or children who needed skilled care services filed this lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. They sued the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration and the Florida Department of Health, as well as eQHealth, a Louisiana non-profit corporation that contracted with the other defendant entities to make medical necessity determinations. The plaintiffs were represented by private counsel, the Florida State University College of Law Public Interest Law Center, and the North Florida Center for Equal Justice. The plaintiffs sued under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act, the Medicaid Act (“Medicaid”), and Medicaid’s Early and Periodic Screening, Diagnostic, and Treatment Services (“EPSDT Provisions”), alleging that the defendants’ policies, actions, and omissions in reducing community-based, medically necessary services to medically fragile children hindered the plaintiffs’ caregivers’ ability to provide safe and appropriate care at home. By cutting such medical services for the plaintiffs, the defendants allegedly placed them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization in nursing facilities that were inappropriate for the plaintiffs’ care. 

The plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief. First, they sought a declaration that the defendants’ policies, actions, and omissions put the plaintiffs at risk of being placed in segregated facilities, in violation of the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, Medicaid, and the EPSDT Provisions. They also sought a permanent injunction requiring the defendants to provide medically necessary services in the most integrated setting possible. The case was assigned to District Judge William J. Zloch and Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum. 

On April 26, 2012, the plaintiffs filed an unopposed motion to consolidate the case with T.H., et al v. Dudek, et al, which Judge Zloch granted on May 11, 2012. The plaintiffs then filed an amended complaint on May 16, 2012. The amended complaint sought relief on behalf of the putative class of medically fragile children and two subclasses: (1) medically fragile children who lived at home but were at risk of future institutionalization and (2) medically fragile children already placed in geriatric nursing facilities. The amended complaint also added a claim under the Nursing Home Reform Amendments to the Medicaid Act. It sought to compel the state to provide services that would allow the plaintiffs to live in their homes and communities, to cease the practice of denying or reducing the plaintiffs' services at recertification where there had been no change in the medical necessity of such services, and to award compensatory services to remedy conditions that had resulted from past failures to provide medically necessary services.

The defendants moved to dismiss the action on June 1, 2012. The Florida state agency defendants claimed that they had provided services in accordance with state and federal Medicaid requirements and that they had not enacted a policy that favored institutionalization.

On July 17, 2012 the court denied the motion to dismiss in a short order, stating that the issues would be better addressed in a motion for summary judgment. The case was reassigned to District Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on July 17, 2012 and to Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for discovery proceedings on October 11, 2012. 

The United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”) filed a Statement of Interest on June 28, 2012, urging the court to deny the defendants' motion to dismiss. Specifically, the DOJ argued that the plaintiffs had (1) adequately identified a state policy that placed them at risk of unnecessary institutionalization in violation of the ADA, (2) stated a valid claim that the defendants violated the "reasonable promptness" and EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act by unreasonably applying their definition of medical necessity, and (3) alleged a clear violation of the Preadmission Screening and Resident Review (“PASRR”) requirements of the Nursing Home Reform Amendments.

The plaintiffs filed a second amended consolidated complaint on August 15, 2012 that added additional plaintiffs.

On September 4, 2012, following an investigation of six large nursing facilities that housed the majority of children with medically complex or fragile conditions, the DOJ sent a Findings Letter to the Attorney General of Florida. The DOJ concluded that the state had failed to meet its obligations under Title VII of the ADA and 28 C.F.R. Part 35 by unnecessarily institutionalizing hundreds of children in nursing facilities and putting many others at risk of such placement.

For instance, although some community-based services were available through the Medicaid State Plan, the DOJ found the state had acted irrationally and placed several restrictions on the availability of these services. The DOJ noted that the children could live at home with their families or in more integrated community settings if adequate services and support were provided. Specifically, the DOJ recommended that the state (1) increase community capacity by allocating additional waiver slots; (2) amend existing policies, including policies that may lead to inappropriate denial of medically necessary services; and (3) expand other community services to serve children in or at risk of entering nursing facilities. The DOJ also recommended that the state develop and implement an active transition plan to ensure that services and support would be available to serve the children. The DOJ specified that the transition plan should consult individuals knowledgeable about community living options, rather than rely on the staff of nursing facilities for such arrangements.

A few weeks later, the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration, the Florida Department of Health, and the Florida Department of Children and Families responded to the Findings Letter. They noted that, upon receiving the Findings Letter, they conducted their own multi-agency investigation and deemed the DOJ’s assertions unfounded. They stated their interest in working collaboratively with the DOJ, but noted that they required certain documents from the DOJ before they could start working on any issues.

On November 27, 2012, the plaintiffs moved for class certification. The court denied their motion without prejudice on September 25, 2013. The decision turned on whether the plaintiffs challenged the state’s systematic practice of institutionalizing at-risk children (which would make a class action appropriate) or whether the plaintiffs instead challenged individualized executions of the state’s policy (which would not warrant class certification). Judge Rosenbaum determined that she required a more-developed record to make this determination. 2013 WL 11971283.

On February 21, 2013, the defendants moved to dismiss the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction due to mootness, claiming that they had voluntarily implemented policy changes to the specific rules, practices, and regulations challenged by the plaintiffs. The court denied the motion on August 6, 2013. Judge Rosenbaum found that the defendants had ceased their prior unlawful conduct. For government actors, this cessation creates a rebuttable presumption of mootness. However, the court held that the defendants were not entitled to this presumption because they only developed changes to existing policy, instead of enacting final rules that would unambiguously terminate their wrongful conduct. 2013 WL 11971282.

On December 6, 2013, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to consolidate their case with United States v. State of Florida, a case brought by the DOJ against the state for allegedly unnecessarily segregating and institutionalizing children with disabilities in violation of the ADA.

On December 19, 2013, the plaintiffs renewed their motion to certify the class. The defendants renewed their motion to dismiss on March 3, 2014.

Shortly thereafter, the case was reassigned to Judge William J. Zloch, who referred the parties to mediation on June 17, 2014. On September 9, 2014, Judge Zloch denied the plaintiffs' motion for class certification without prejudice, with leave to refile following the court's ruling on the defendants' renewed motion to dismiss. Judge Zloch reasoned that because the motion to dismiss challenged the court’s subject matter jurisdiction, the court should resolve that potentially dispositive motion prior to reviewing the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. 2014 WL 11531369. 

The court denied the defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing on December 29, 2014. Adopting the November 13 report and recommendation of the magistrate judge (2014 WL 11531370), the court held that the plaintiffs had standing because they had sufficiently alleged that the challenged policies acted as a catalyst to imminent harm—institutionalization. They did so in a real and concrete way by cutting medically necessary services. Further, the plaintiffs’ claims were not moot because, even though the defendants had finalized their rules, their purported termination of the alleged wrongful conduct was still ambiguous because they had not changed the definition of “medically necessary” or “medical necessity,” which was integral to the plaintiffs’ claims. 2014 WL 11531887.

On January 30, 2015, the plaintiffs settled with the defendant eQHealth, a Louisiana non-profit organization that contracted frequently with Florida. The plaintiffs asked that the court retain jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement, the terms of which were not made public. On April 17, 2015, the final mediation report was handed in to the court. The remaining parties were unable to settle.

The plaintiffs renewed their motion for class certification on April 3, 2015. The defendants, in turn, moved for judgment on the pleadings on May 4, 2015. 

On September 1, 2015, the court adopted a report and recommendation from by Magistrate Judge Hunt (2015 WL 11142892), granting in part and denying in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings. 2015 WL 11143083. At stake was a portion of the plaintiffs' request for an injunction forcing "compensatory services" to make the plaintiffs whole after they were consistently denied medically necessary services. The defendants argued that compensatory damages are only available to plaintiffs in suits arising from the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”). The court agreed, ruling in favor of the defendants on the request for an injunction seeking compensatory services. However, Magistrate Judge Hunt noted that the plaintiffs’ request under the EPSDT Provisions required the defendants to provide services to "correct or ameliorate defects and physical and mental illnesses and conditions discovered" by the defendants.

On February 29, 2016, the court denied class certification (2016 WL 3766139), adopting another report and recommendation by Magistrate Judge Hunt (2015 WL 11143082). First, the court deemed the proposed class overly broad. The plaintiffs sought to certify a class of "All current and future Medicaid recipients in Florida under the age of 21, who are (1) institutionalized in nursing facilities, or (2) medically complex or fragile and at risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities." Magistrate Judge Hunt noted that this definition included all children who could be institutionalized, as opposed to those who would be unnecessarily institutionalized. Second, the court found the class unnecessary, given the low probability of the case becoming moot.

The next month, on March 21, the defendants moved for summary judgment. The following month, the defendants also moved to dismiss the plaintiff A.R. because they had moved out of the state. Further, the defendants moved to dismiss three plaintiffs in June of that year because those plaintiffs had died and no subsequent parties represented the decedents’ interests.

On June 9, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hunt issued a report and recommendation advising Judge Zloch to grant partial summary judgment for the Florida defendants on the United States’ damages claim. Magistrate Judge Hunt concluded that the United States should fail on its money damages claim under Title II of the ADA because it did not allege individualized injuries for each child. 2016 WL 3221140.

Magistrate Judge Hunt issued another report and recommendation on June 14, 2016. He recommended granting the defendants’ motion to dismiss A.R.'s claims as moot. 2016 WL 11783303. The court adopted the magistrate judge’s recommendations on June 27, 2016; on the same day, it also dismissed the claims of the three plaintiffs who had died. The plaintiffs filed a motion for reconsideration as to the dismissal of A.R.'s claims, and the court denied the motion on June 30, 2016.

On August 8, 2016, Magistrate Judge Hunt ordered the United States to pay the state of Florida $40,168.99 in attorneys’ fees and costs for violating discovery rules. 2016 WL 11783282.

The plaintiffs appealed A.R.’s dismissal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit on August 15, 2016. The Eleventh Circuit dismissed the appeal on December 20, 2016 for lack of jurisdiction.

Back in the district court, Judge Zloch dismissed the United States as a plaintiff on September 20, 2016. The court found that the United States lacked standing to sue under the plain language of Title II of the ADA. 209 F. Supp. 3d 1279. In light of this order, the court denied the defendants’ motion for summary judgment as moot the next day. The United States subsequently asked the court to allow it to appeal the dismissal by vacating the consolidation order, issuing a separate judgment, or certifying an interlocutory appeal. The court declined to vacate the consolidation order on November 14, 2016, and declined the other two requests on January 11 of the following year. 2017 WL 11680161.

On January 19, 2017, the court partially adopted a report and recommendation (2016 WL 11783280) and dismissed a plaintiff's claims as moot because they had turned 21 years old and become ineligible for the Florida Medicaid program. 2017 WL 11680164. After a February 15, 2017 report and recommendation (2017 WL 11680162), on March 10 of that year the court dismissed another plaintiff who turned 21. 2017 WL 11680163. In the same order, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Nursing Home Amendment claim because it had been specifically brought on behalf of institutionalized children, and none of the remaining plaintiffs were institutionalized. 

On June 9, 2017, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the three remaining plaintiffs (2017 WL 11680165), citing the March 22, 2017 recommendation of the magistrate judge (2017 WL 2730397). The defendants had changed or removed the previously offending policies. Magistrate Judge Hunt found that, although a change in policy like this would not usually render a claim moot, the analysis changes when it concerns a government policy. Magistrate Judge Hunt deemed the remaining plaintiffs’ claims moot because the offending policies had been unambiguously terminated, made in good faith with substantial deliberation, and consistently applied. 

On August 7, 2017, six plaintiffs appealed the district court’s orders dismissing their claims, denying class certification, and granting summary judgment for the defendants. On May 16, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit issued a per curiam opinion affirming the district court’s rulings. Circuit Judges Jill Pryor, Elizabeth L. Branch, and Danny J. Boggs heard the case. The Eleventh Circuit adopted the district court’s reasoning as to the defendants’ good faith policy changes that rendered the plaintiffs’ claims moot. 769 F. App’x 718.

The United States also appealed its dismissal as a plaintiff on August 7, 2017. On September 17, 2019, the Eleventh Circuit reversed the district court's dismissal of the United States as a plaintiff and remanded for further proceedings. Writing for the court, Judge Boggs held that the U.S. Attorney General had standing to sue under Title II of the ADA because Congress had approved enforcement “by any other means authorized by law.” Judge Branch dissented, arguing that the plain text of Title II only gives standing to “any person alleging discrimination,” and thus the United States did not qualify. 938 F.3d 1221.

Florida filed a petition for rehearing en banc on October 29, 2019, which the Eleventh Circuit denied on December 22, 2021. Circuit Judge Kevin C. Newsom dissented from the denial of rehearing. 21 F.4th 730.

On April 21, 2022, Florida filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States. Florida echoed Judge Branch’s argument that the United States lacked standing because it did not constitute a “person alleging discrimination” under the ADA. 2022 WL 1250772. The Supreme Court denied the petition on October 3, 2022. 143 S. Ct. 89. 

Meanwhile in the district court, the case was reassigned to Judge Cecilia M. Altonaga in January 2022. Judge Altonaga recused herself later that month for reasons unknown to the Clearinghouse. The case was then transferred to Judge Donald M. Middlebrooks.

On June 15, 2022, the United States filed an amended complaint under the ADA to enforce the rights of “Institutionalized Children”—children with complex medical needs who were unnecessarily institutionalized in nursing homes or young adults admitted to these facilities who remained there unnecessarily—in Florida. The complaint alleged that Florida discriminated against Institutionalized Children in violation of the ADA by failing to administer medical services in the setting most appropriate to their needs, namely their homes and communities. The complaint sought declaratory and injunctive relief. Specifically, the United States sought (1) a declaration that Florida violated Title II of the ADA by failing to administer services to prevent unnecessary institutionalization and (2) an injunction barring Florida from discriminating against Institutionalized Children by requiring the provision of appropriate, integrated, community-based healthcare and the implementation of steps to prevent future discrimination.

Florida again moved to dismiss the amended complaint on July 20, 2022, arguing that the United States failed to state child-specific facts adequate to assert a claim under Title II of the ADA. Florida and the United States filed cross-motions for summary judgment on February 15 and 16, 2023.

Judge Middlebrooks adopted Magistrate Judge Hunt’s recommendation (2023 WL 2330693) on March 2, 2023 and denied Florida’s motion to dismiss, holding that the United States had fulfilled its burden under Title II. 2023 WL 2329522.

On April 11, 2023, Magistrate Judge Hunt recommended partially granting Florida’s motion for summary judgment and denying the United States’ motion for partial summary judgment. The magistrate judge concluded that the United States had sufficiently alleged systemic violations of the ADA to survive summary judgment. As to the requirements imposed by the Supreme Court in L.C. v. Olmstead, the magistrate judge concluded that there were genuine issues of material fact as to whether community settings would be appropriate for the children and whether their parents were in favor of moving them to community settings, so the magistrate judge recommended denying summary judgment on those issues. Finally, the magistrate judge concluded there were genuine issues of material fact related to the United States’s recommended accommodations, though recommended granting summary judgment to Florida as to whether two particular accommodations were “fundamental alterations” and thus not required by Olmstead. 2023 WL 3293661. 

Judge Middlebrooks accepted the recommendation on May 5, 2023.  The court granted Florida’s motion for summary judgment to the extent that (1) “any modification that requires Florida to provide community-care services that would exceed the federally approved cost or participant cap on a Medicaid program would be a fundamental alteration to that program” and (2) “any request to create a new program akin to foster care featuring in-home placement with people who are not a child’s custodians would be an impermissible fundamental alteration to the program.” 2023 WL 3276779.

Judge Middlebrooks presided over a nine-day bench trial from May 8 to May 19, 2023. At the end of the trial, the court stated that it anticipated ruling in favor of the United States on the merits, but asked for additional briefs regarding remedies. Per the court’s order, the parties filed a joint status report on May 24, 2023, stating that they did not intend to settle.

The parties gave closing statements in the bench trial before Judge Middlebrooks on June 20, 2023.

On July 14, 2023, the court held that Florida had violated Title II of the ADA by discriminating against children with disabilities, and granted injunctive relief for the plaintiffs. The court found that the United States had standing to sue under the ADA, even if it was not vindicating the rights of individual plaintiffs. Judge Middlebrooks also found that Florida failed to provide adequate community-based and EPSDT services to children with complex medical needs who receive Medicaid, causing them to be unnecessarily institutionalized. The court entered an injunction ordering Florida to (1) require the managed care plans to ensure the provision of all covered and authorized private duty nursing (“PDN”) and develop methods to measure provider performance, including real-time reporting of PDN provider issues; (2) inform families about and facilitate the transition of children from nursing facilities; (3) improve the existing Care Coordination system to strengthen accountability and eliminate silos of care; and (4) enforce the state’s contracts that require managed care organizations to provide sufficient medical care. The court also appointed a monitor to serve for a limited period and ensure compliance with the injunction. 2023 WL 4546188.

Florida appealed on July 17, 2023. In the district court, the state moved to stay the injunction pending appeal on July 21, 2023. Judge Middlebrooks denied the motion on July 25, 2023. 2023 WL 4763189.

The district court entered a final judgment in favor of the United States and against Florida on July 20, 2023. After some back-and-forth between the parties, the district court appointed Steven Fitton as a monitor on August 29, 2023.

In the Eleventh Circuit, the state moved on August 21, 2023 to stay the district court’s injunction pending appeal. The Eleventh Circuit heard oral argument on January 24, 2024. On February 6, 2024, the Eleventh Circuit granted the motion to stay portions of the injunction related to requiring a training curriculum for Care Coordinators, a reporting system for managed care organizations, and certain data collection. The Eleventh Circuit also stayed most of the monitoring provisions. Circuit Judge Andrew L. Brasher partially dissented, stating that he would stay the injunction in its entirety.

The district court held a status conference on February 15, 2024 and scheduled the next status conference for May 1, 2024. As of April 25, 2024, the case is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Alice Liu (9/28/2012)

Andrew Junker (10/29/2014)

Megan Brown (10/31/2016)

Carter Powers Beggs (11/20/2019)

Kady Matsuzaki (3/14/2023)

Sophia Acker (3/31/2024)

Related Cases

United States of America v. State of Florida, Southern District of Florida (2013)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4234232/parties/ar-v-dudek/


Judge(s)

Boggs, Danny Julian (Kentucky)

Attorney for Plaintiff

Annino, Paolo G (Florida)

Chandler, Thomas E. (District of Columbia)

Attorney for Defendant

Austin, Michael Garrett (Florida)

Expert/Monitor/Master/Other

Barkoff, Alison (District of Columbia)

show all people

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

0:12-cv-60460

Docket

A. R. v. Dudek

May 16, 2019

May 16, 2019

Docket

17-13595

Docket

A.R. v. Sec. Health Care Admin

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Nov. 20, 2019

Nov. 20, 2019

Docket
1

0:12-cv-60460

Complaint- Class Action for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

Complaint
45

0:12-cv-60460

Statement of Interest of the United States

June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

Pleading / Motion / Brief
46

0:12-cv-60460

Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

T.H. v. Dudek

July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

Order/Opinion
62

0:12-cv-00460

SECOND AMENDED CONSOLIDATED COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

Complaint

Re: United States' Investigation of the State of Florida's Service System for Children with Disabilities Who Have Medically Complex Conditions, D.J. No. 204-18-212

No Court

Sept. 4, 2012

Sept. 4, 2012

Findings Letter/Report

Re: D.J. No. 204-18-212 (Response to 9/4/2012 Findings Letter)

No Court

Sept. 28, 2012

Sept. 28, 2012

Findings Letter/Report
175

0:12-cv-60460

Order [Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss]

T.H. v. Dudek

Aug. 6, 2013

Aug. 6, 2013

Order/Opinion

2013 WL 2013

203

0:12-cv-60460

Order [Denying Motion to Certify Class]

T.H. v. Dudek

Sept. 25, 2013

Sept. 25, 2013

Order/Opinion

2013 WL 2013

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4234232/ar-v-dudek/

Last updated March 31, 2024, 4:38 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT - CLASS ACTION FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF against All Defendants. Filing fee $ 350.00 receipt number 113C-4548818, filed by T.F., M.D., C.V., A.R., C.M., B.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Cover Sheet, # 2 Summon(s) Elizabeth Dudek, # 3 Summon(s) Harry Frank Farmer, # 4 Summon(s) Kristina Wiggins, # 5 Summon(s) eQHealth, # 6 Summon(s) Pam Bondi)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

1 Civil Cover Sheet

View on PACER

2 Summon(s) Elizabeth Dudek

View on PACER

3 Summon(s) Harry Frank Farmer

View on PACER

4 Summon(s) Kristina Wiggins

View on PACER

5 Summon(s) eQHealth

View on PACER

6 Summon(s) Pam Bondi

View on PACER

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

Clearinghouse
2

Judge Assignment to Judge William J. Zloch and Magistrate Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum (ar2) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
3

Summons Issued as to Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins, eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (ar2) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
4

Clerks Notice to Filer re: Summons(es) cannot be issued. The party(ies) on the summons(es) does not match the initiating documents. (ar2) (Entered: 03/13/2012)

March 13, 2012

March 13, 2012

PACER
5

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Beverly H Smith on behalf of Elizabeth Dudek (Smith, Beverly) (Entered: 04/03/2012)

April 3, 2012

April 3, 2012

PACER
6

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Andrew T. Sheeran on behalf of Elizabeth Dudek (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 04/03/2012)

April 3, 2012

April 3, 2012

PACER
7

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Harry Osborne Thomas on behalf of eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (Thomas, Harry) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012

PACER
8

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Lisa Scoles on behalf of eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012

PACER
9

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 1 Complaint, by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins, eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order Proposed Order)(Thomas, Harry) (Entered: 04/04/2012)

April 4, 2012

April 4, 2012

PACER
10

Paperless Order GRANTING Defendants' Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. All Defendants shall have until noon on Friday, April 20, 2012, to respond to Plaintiffs' Complaint.Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 4/5/2012.(wjz2) (Entered: 04/05/2012)

April 5, 2012

April 5, 2012

PACER
11

Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorneys Jamie Ito and Edward J. Grunewald, mailing date April 9, 2012. (ksa) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

April 9, 2012

April 9, 2012

PACER
12

Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorney Paolo G. Annino, mailing date April 9, 2012. (ksa) (Entered: 04/09/2012)

April 9, 2012

April 9, 2012

PACER
13

CLERK'S NOTICE re 11 Bar Letter re: Admissions sent to attorneys Jamie Ito and Edward J. Grunewald. Attorneys Jamie Ito and Edward J. Grunewald are members of this Court's Bar. They were admitted to the Southern District of Florida Bar on March 20, 2012. (ksa) (Entered: 04/11/2012)

April 11, 2012

April 11, 2012

PACER
14

Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. Responses due by 5/7/2012 (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

PACER
15

Defendant's MOTION Motion to Take Judicial Notice re 14 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 04/19/2012)

April 19, 2012

April 19, 2012

PACER
16

Consent MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer RE: Complaints re 1 Complaint, Second Motion for Extension by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

April 20, 2012

April 20, 2012

PACER
17

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 16 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Complaint. Defendants Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D. and Kristina Wiggins shall file their response to Plaintiffs' Complaint by Noon, Friday, 4/27/2012. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 4/20/2012. (bc) (Entered: 04/20/2012)

April 20, 2012

April 20, 2012

PACER
18

Unopposed MOTION to Consolidate Cases and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F.. Responses due by 5/14/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 04/26/2012)

1 Text of Proposed Order

View on RECAP

April 26, 2012

April 26, 2012

RECAP
19

MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. Responses due by 5/14/2012 (Sheeran, Andrew) (Entered: 04/27/2012)

April 27, 2012

April 27, 2012

PACER
20

Clerks Notice to Filer re 19 MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM . Attorney Did Not Associate Themselves; ERROR - Filing attorney neglected to associate themselves to the case. The Clerk has added the attorney to the case. It is not necessary to refile this document future filings must comply with the CM/ECF Administrative Procedures and Local Rules by filing a Notice of Attorney Appearance and linking themselves to the case. (ls) (Entered: 04/30/2012)

April 30, 2012

April 30, 2012

PACER
21

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 14 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law by A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F.. (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/03/2012)

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

PACER
22

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 21 Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to 14 Defendant's Motion to Dismiss 1 Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file their response to Defendants' 14 Motion to Dismiss Complaint by Noon, 5/14/2012. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 5/3/2012. (bc) (Entered: 05/03/2012)

May 3, 2012

May 3, 2012

PACER
23

ORDER of Instructions. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 5/11/2012. (bc) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

PACER
24

ORDER granting 18 Unopposed Motion to Consolidate Cases. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 5/11/2012. (ar2) (Entered: 05/11/2012)

May 11, 2012

May 11, 2012

PACER
25

MOTION TO DISMISS 1 Complaint, FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. Responses due by 6/1/2012 (Smith, Beverly) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

PACER
26

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Responses due by 6/1/2012 (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

PACER
27

ORDER granting 26 Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Complaint. Plaintiffs shall file their Amended Complaint by Noon, 5/18/2012. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 5/15/2012. (bc) (Entered: 05/15/2012)

May 15, 2012

May 15, 2012

PACER
28

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Stuart Fraser Williams on behalf of Elizabeth Dudek Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-WJZ, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Williams, Stuart) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

PACER
29

Plaintiff's AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed in response to Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by T.F., M.D., A.C., C.V., A.R., C.M., T.H., B.M.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 05/16/2012)

May 16, 2012

May 16, 2012

PACER
30

Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 29 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. Responses due by 6/18/2012 (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

PACER
31

Defendant's MOTION for Hearing re 30 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 29 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law and Request for Oral Argument by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 05/30/2012)

May 30, 2012

May 30, 2012

PACER
32

MOTION TO DISMISS 29 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Elizabeth Dudek. Responses due by 6/18/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Williams, Stuart) (Entered: 06/01/2012)

June 1, 2012

June 1, 2012

PACER
33

Corporate Disclosure Statement by eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (Thomas, Harry) (Entered: 06/04/2012)

June 4, 2012

June 4, 2012

PACER
34

SCHEDULING REPORT - Rule 26(f) by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/06/2012)

June 6, 2012

June 6, 2012

PACER
35

ORDER for Pre-Trial Conference. Pretrial Conference set for 6/14/2013 at 9:30 AM in Fort Lauderdale Division before Judge William J. Zloch. Pretrial Stipulation due by Noon, 5/31/2013. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 6/7/2012. (bc) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

PACER
36

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Mediation. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 6/7/2012. (bc) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

PACER
37

Order on Trial Instructions. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 6/7/2012. (bc) (Entered: 06/07/2012)

June 7, 2012

June 7, 2012

PACER
38

RESPONSE to Motion re 32 MOTION TO DISMISS 29 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM filed by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Replies due by 6/28/2012. (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

PACER
39

RESPONSE to Motion re 30 Defendant's MOTION TO DISMISS 29 Amended Complaint FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM and Supporting Memorandum of Law filed by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Replies due by 6/28/2012. (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/18/2012)

June 18, 2012

June 18, 2012

PACER
40

MOTION for Protective Order by Elizabeth Dudek. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Smith, Beverly) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

PACER
41

ORDER granting 40 Motion for Protective Order. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 6/25/2012. (bc) (Entered: 06/25/2012)

June 25, 2012

June 25, 2012

PACER
42

NOTICE by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H. NOTICE OF NO AGREEMENT ON SELECTION OF MEDIATOR (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

PACER
43

PAPERLESS ORDER denying as moot 14, 15, 19 and 25 Motions to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim per Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint 29 . Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 6/26/2012. (bc) (Entered: 06/26/2012)

June 26, 2012

June 26, 2012

PACER
44

RESPONSE/REPLY to 39 Response to Motion, Reply to Plaintiffs' Response to eQHealth's Motion to Dismiss and Supporting Memorandum of Law by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 06/27/2012)

June 27, 2012

June 27, 2012

PACER
45

Statement of: Interest by United States of America (Harrell-James, Veronica) (Entered: 06/28/2012)

June 28, 2012

June 28, 2012

PACER
46

ORDER denying 30 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim; denying as moot 31 Motion for Hearing; denying 32 Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim. Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 7/17/2012. (bc) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

RECAP
47

ORDER REASSIGNING CASE to Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum for all further proceedings, Judge William J. Zloch no longer assigned to case Signed by Judge William J. Zloch on 7/17/2012. (mb) (Entered: 07/17/2012)

July 17, 2012

July 17, 2012

PACER
48

Clerk's Appointment of Mediator: Robert D McIntosh added (pt) (Entered: 07/20/2012)

July 20, 2012

July 20, 2012

PACER
49

Amended Scheduling Order and ORDER of REFERRAL to Mediation SCHEDULING ORDER: ( Jury Trial set for 6/17/2013 before Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum., Calendar Call set for 6/13/2013 01:00 PM in Fort Lauderdale Division before Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum., Amended Pleadings due by 8/15/2012., Expert Discovery due by 5/10/2013., Fact Discovery due by 3/26/2013., Joinder of Parties due by 8/15/2012., In Limine Motions due by 6/3/2013., Dispositive Motions due by 4/10/2013., Pretrial Stipulation due by 6/6/2013.) Mediation Deadline 4/15/2013. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 7/30/2012. (cbr) Modified year of calendar call on 8/1/2012 (wc). (Entered: 07/31/2012)

July 30, 2012

July 30, 2012

PACER
50

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by eQHealth Solutions, Inc..(Thomas, Harry) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012

PACER
51

NOTICE of Substitution of Counsel by Jennifer Ann Tschetter on behalf of Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ (Tschetter, Jennifer) Modified text on 8/1/2012 (ar2). (Entered: 07/31/2012)

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012

PACER
52

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Elizabeth Dudek.(Smith, Beverly) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012

PACER
53

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins.(Tschetter, Jennifer) (Entered: 07/31/2012)

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012

PACER

Attorney Nicholas William Romanello terminated per DE 51 Notice. Notice of Termination delivered by US Mail to Nicholas Romanello. (ar2)

July 31, 2012

July 31, 2012

PACER
54

NOTICE by Elizabeth Dudek Notice of Appearance of Counsel Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Raleigh, Lisa) (Entered: 08/03/2012)

Aug. 3, 2012

Aug. 3, 2012

PACER
55

UNOPPOSED MOTION to Amend 29 Amended Complaint and Enlarge Deadlines by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Responses due by 9/4/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Second Amended Complaint)(Dietz, Matthew). Added MOTION to Enlarge Deadlines on 8/16/2012 (ar2). (Entered: 08/15/2012)

Aug. 15, 2012

Aug. 15, 2012

PACER
56

Clerks Notice to Filer re 55 Unopposed MOTION to Amend/Correct 29 Amended Complaint and Enlarge Deadlines. Motion with Multiple Reliefs Filed as One Relief; ERROR - The Filer selected only one relief event and failed to select the additional corresponding events for each relief requested in the motion. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but future filings must comply with the instructions in the CM/ECF Attorney User's Manual. (ar2) (Entered: 08/16/2012)

Aug. 16, 2012

Aug. 16, 2012

PACER
57

ORDER REQUIRING CLARIFICATION regarding Plaintiffs' Motion to Amend Complaint and Enlarge Deadlines DE 55 . See Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 8/17/2012. Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ (kms) Modified link on 8/21/2012 (tp). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

Aug. 17, 2012

Aug. 17, 2012

PACER
58

RESPONSE to 57 Order and Notice of Scrivener's Error by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. (Dietz, Matthew) Modified to add missing event [DE 59] Notice (Other) on 8/20/2012 (ar2). (Entered: 08/17/2012)

Aug. 17, 2012

Aug. 17, 2012

PACER
59

NOTICE of Scrivener's Error by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H. (See DE 58 for image). (ar2) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

Aug. 17, 2012

Aug. 17, 2012

PACER
60

Clerks Notice to Filer re 59 Notice (Other), 58 Response/Reply (Other). Two or More Document Events Filed as One; ERROR - Only one event was selected by the Filer but more than one event was applicable to the document filed. The docket entry was corrected by the Clerk. It is not necessary to refile this document but in the future, the Filer must select all applicable events. (ar2) (Entered: 08/20/2012)

Aug. 20, 2012

Aug. 20, 2012

PACER
61

ORDER granting 55 Unopposed Motion to Amend Complaint and Enlarge Deadlines. Clerks Notice: Filer must separately re-file the amended pleading pursuant to Local Rule 15.1, unless otherwise ordered by the Judge. Motion for Class Certification due by 10/26/2012, Responses due by 11/16/2012; Interim Status Report due by 1/16/2013. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 8/21/2012. (kms) (Entered: 08/21/2012)

Aug. 21, 2012

Aug. 21, 2012

PACER
62

Second AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed in response to Order Granting Motion for Leave, filed by T.F., M.D., A.C., C.V., A.R., C.M., T.H., B.M..(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 08/23/2012)

Aug. 23, 2012

Aug. 23, 2012

PACER
63

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Michael Garrett Austin on behalf of Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 08/24/2012)

Aug. 24, 2012

Aug. 24, 2012

PACER
64

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint (Second) by eQHealth Solutions, Inc..(Thomas, Harry) (Entered: 08/31/2012)

Aug. 31, 2012

Aug. 31, 2012

PACER
65

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Elizabeth Dudek.Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

Sept. 6, 2012

Sept. 6, 2012

PACER
66

ANSWER and Affirmative Defenses to Amended Complaint by Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins.Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 09/06/2012)

Sept. 6, 2012

Sept. 6, 2012

PACER
67

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant eQHealth by Lisa C. Scoles. by eQHealth Solutions, Inc.. Responses due by 9/27/2012 (Scoles, Lisa) (Entered: 09/10/2012)

Sept. 10, 2012

Sept. 10, 2012

PACER
68

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 67 Lisa C. Scoles's Motion to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant eQHealth Solutions, Inc. Attorneys Harry O. Thomas and Donna E. Blanton will continue to represent Defendant eQHealth in this matter. Attorney Lisa Scoles terminated. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 9/11/2012. (kms) (Entered: 09/11/2012)

Sept. 11, 2012

Sept. 11, 2012

PACER
69

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Thomas Ames Crabb on behalf of eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (Crabb, Thomas) (Entered: 09/28/2012)

Sept. 28, 2012

Sept. 28, 2012

PACER
70

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Christopher Brian Lunny on behalf of eQHealth Solutions, Inc. (Lunny, Christopher) (Entered: 10/03/2012)

Oct. 3, 2012

Oct. 3, 2012

PACER
71

NOTICE of Attorney Appearance by Leslei Gayle Street on behalf of Elizabeth Dudek (Street, Leslei) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

Oct. 5, 2012

Oct. 5, 2012

PACER
72

Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to file answers to interrogatories by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Responses due by 10/22/2012 (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 10/05/2012)

Oct. 5, 2012

Oct. 5, 2012

PACER
73

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Lisa Raleigh. by Elizabeth Dudek. Responses due by 10/29/2012 Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Raleigh, Lisa) (Entered: 10/10/2012)

Oct. 10, 2012

Oct. 10, 2012

PACER
74

ORDER REFERRING CASE to Ch. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer for Discovery Proceedings. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 10/11/2012. (kms) (Entered: 10/11/2012)

Oct. 11, 2012

Oct. 11, 2012

PACER
75

PAPERLESS ORDER requiring that on or before noon on October 18, 2012, Defendants Harry Frank Famer and Kristina Wiggins shall file an expedited response to 72 Plaintiff's MOTION for Enlargement of Time to file Answers to Defendants, Harry Frank Farmer and Kristina Wiggins', First Set of Interrogatories. Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 10/15/2012. (kas) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Oct. 15, 2012

Oct. 15, 2012

PACER
76

ORDER granting 73 Lisa Raleigh's Motion to Withdraw as Counsel for Defendant Agency for Healthcare Administration. Attorney Lisa Maria Raleigh terminated. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 10/15/2012. (kms) (Entered: 10/15/2012)

Oct. 15, 2012

Oct. 15, 2012

PACER
77

RESPONSE in Opposition re 72 Plaintiff's MOTION for Extension of Time to file answers to interrogatories filed by Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B)(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

PACER
78

PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part and denying in part 72 Plaintiffs' Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Answers to Defendant, Harry Frank Farmer and Kristina Wiggins', First Set of Interrogatories. Plaintiff shall have until and including November 2, 2012, to respond to the Interrogatories. Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 10/18/2012. (kas) (Entered: 10/18/2012)

Oct. 18, 2012

Oct. 18, 2012

PACER
79

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to file Motion for Class Certification by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Responses due by 11/13/2012 (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 10/24/2012)

Oct. 24, 2012

Oct. 24, 2012

PACER
80

PAPERLESS ORDER granting in part and denying in part 79 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Enlargement of Time to File Moton for Class Certification. Plaintiffs shall file their Motion for Class Certification by November 27, 2012, and Defendants shall file their response to the Motion for Class Certification by January 11, 2013. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 10/25/2012. (kms) (Entered: 10/25/2012)

Oct. 25, 2012

Oct. 25, 2012

PACER
81

MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney by Beverly H. Smith. by Elizabeth Dudek. Responses due by 11/19/2012 (Smith, Beverly) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

PACER
82

Defendant's MOTION for Discovery to Bifurcate and/or Stay Classwide Discovery by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. Responses due by 11/19/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit Exhibit G)(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 11/02/2012)

5

View on RECAP

Nov. 2, 2012

Nov. 2, 2012

PACER
83

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 81 Beverly H. Smith's Motion to Withdraw as counsel for Defendants Elizabeth Dudek and the Agency for Healthcare Administration. Attorney Beverly H Smith terminated Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 11/5/2012. (kms) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

Nov. 5, 2012

Nov. 5, 2012

PACER
84

Defendant's MOTION for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories by Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 11/05/2012)

Nov. 5, 2012

Nov. 5, 2012

PACER
85

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 84 Defendant DOH's Motion for Extension of Time to Serve Responses to Plaintiffs' First Interrogatories. Defendant DOH shall have until and including November 15, 2012, to serve responses to Plaintiffs' First Set of Interrogatories. Signed by Ch. Magistrate Judge Barry S. Seltzer on 11/6/2012. (kas) (Entered: 11/06/2012)

Nov. 6, 2012

Nov. 6, 2012

PACER
86

Defendant's MOTION Motion for Cease and Desist Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Improper and Misleading Communications with Putative Class Members by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit Exhibit C)(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 11/13/2012)

Nov. 13, 2012

Nov. 13, 2012

PACER
87

ORDER Expediting Briefing re 86 Defendant's Motion for Cease and Desist Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Improper and Misleading Communications with Putative Class Members. Plaintiffs' response to the Motion is due by November 23, 2012. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 11/16/2012. (kms) (Entered: 11/16/2012)

Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

PACER

Reset Deadlines as to 86 Defendant's MOTION Motion for Cease and Desist Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Improper and Misleading Communications with Putative Class Members . Responses due by 11/23/2012 (tp)

Nov. 16, 2012

Nov. 16, 2012

PACER
88

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 82 Defendant's MOTION for Discovery to Bifurcate and/or Stay Classwide Discovery by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

PACER
89

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 88 Plaintiff's Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Response re 82 Defendant's MOTION to Bifurcate and/or Stay Classwide Discovery. Plaintiff's Response is due by 11/20/2012. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 11/19/2012. (kms) (Entered: 11/19/2012)

Nov. 19, 2012

Nov. 19, 2012

PACER
90

RESPONSE to Motion re 82 Defendant's MOTION for Discovery to Bifurcate and/or Stay Classwide Discovery filed by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Replies due by 11/30/2012. (Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

Nov. 20, 2012

Nov. 20, 2012

PACER
91

Plaintiff's MOTION for Leave to File Excess Pages on Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for Class Certification by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 11/20/2012)

Nov. 20, 2012

Nov. 20, 2012

PACER
92

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 91 Plaintiffs' Unopposed Motion for Leave to Exceed Page Limit on Plaintiffs' Motion and Memorandum for Class Certification. Plaintiffs shall be permitted to file a Motion for Class Certification that is 40 pages in length. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 11/21/2012. (kms) (Entered: 11/21/2012)

Nov. 21, 2012

Nov. 21, 2012

PACER
93

RESPONSE in Opposition re (86 in 0:12-cv-60460-RSR) Defendant's MOTION Motion for Cease and Desist Order Regarding Plaintiffs' Improper and Misleading Communications with Putative Class Members filed by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit Exhibit A)Associated Cases: 0:12-cv-60460-RSR, 0:12-cv-60461-WJZ(Ito, Jamie) (Entered: 11/23/2012)

Nov. 23, 2012

Nov. 23, 2012

PACER
94

ORDER granting in part and denying in part 82 Defendants' Motion to Bifurcate Discovery and/or Motion to Stay Classwide Discovery. Please see Order for details. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 11/26/2012. (kms) (Entered: 11/26/2012)

Nov. 26, 2012

Nov. 26, 2012

PACER
95

Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H.. Responses due by 12/14/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

1 Exhibit

View on RECAP

2 Exhibit

View on RECAP

Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

PACER
96

NOTICE by A.C., A.R., B.M., C.M., C.V., M.D., T.F., T.H. re 95 Plaintiff's MOTION to Certify Class - Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and Incorporated Memorandum of Law NOTICE OF FILING EXHIBITS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit, # 3 Exhibit, # 4 Exhibit, # 5 Exhibit, # 6 Exhibit, # 7 Exhibit, # 8 Exhibit, # 9 Exhibit, # 10 Exhibit, # 11 Exhibit, # 12 Exhibit, # 13 Exhibit, # 14 Exhibit, # 15 Exhibit, # 16 Exhibit, # 17 Exhibit, # 18 Exhibit, # 19 Exhibit, # 20 Exhibit, # 21 Exhibit, # 22 Exhibit, # 23 Exhibit, # 24 Exhibit, # 25 Exhibit, # 26 Exhibit, # 27 Exhibit, # 28 Exhibit, # 29 Exhibit, # 30 Exhibit, # 31 Exhibit, # 32 Exhibit, # 33 Exhibit, # 34 Exhibit, # 35 Exhibit, # 36 Exhibit, # 37 Exhibit, # 38 Exhibit, # 39 Exhibit, # 40 Exhibit, # 41 Exhibit, # 42 Exhibit)(Dietz, Matthew) (Entered: 11/27/2012)

Nov. 27, 2012

Nov. 27, 2012

PACER
97

Unopposed MOTION for Extension of Time UNOPPOSED TO FILE REPLY BRIEF re 93 Response in Opposition to Motion, by Elizabeth Dudek, Harry Frank Farmer, Jr., M.D., Kristina Wiggins. Responses due by 12/17/2012 (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Austin, Michael) (Entered: 11/30/2012)

Nov. 30, 2012

Nov. 30, 2012

PACER
98

PAPERLESS ORDER granting 97 Defendants' Unopposed Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief in Support of Motion for Cease and Desist Order. The reply is now due on 12/4/12. Signed by Judge Robin S. Rosenbaum on 12/3/2012. (kms) (Entered: 12/03/2012)

Dec. 3, 2012

Dec. 3, 2012

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Florida

Case Type(s):

Public Benefits/Government Services

Disability Rights

Special Collection(s):

DOJ Civil Rights Division Statements of Interest

Olmstead Cases

Post-WalMart decisions on class certification

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: March 13, 2012

Case Ongoing: Yes

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

The United States of America, and a proposed class of all current and future Medicaid recipients in Florida under the age of 21, who are (1) institutionalized in nursing facilities, or (2) medically complex or fragile and at risk of institutionalization in nursing facilities

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Denied

Defendants

eQHealth Solutions, None

Florida Department of Health, State

Agency for Health Care Administration (Tallahassee), State

Defendant Type(s):

Jurisdiction-wide

Hospital/Health Department

Facility Type(s):

Government-run

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12111 et seq.

Section 504 (Rehabilitation Act), 29 U.S.C. § 701

Medicaid, 42 U.S.C §1396 (Title XIX of the Social Security Act)

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Non-settlement Outcome

Any published opinion

Findings Letter/Report

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Declaratory Judgment

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Private Settlement Agreement

Conditional Dismissal

Content of Injunction:

Develop anti-discrimination policy

Monitor/Master

Monitoring

Order Duration: 2023 - None

Issues

General/Misc.:

Access to public accommodations - governmental

Classification / placement

Deinstitutionalization/decarceration

Family reunification

Government services

Individualized planning

Juveniles

Parents (visitation, involvement)

Pattern or Practice

Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)

Reassessment and care planning

Relative caretakers

Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)

Benefits (Source):

Medicaid

Disability and Disability Rights:

Brain injury

Cerebral palsy

Integrated setting

Intellectual/developmental disability, unspecified

Least restrictive environment

Mental impairment

Mobility impairment

Reasonable Accommodations

Reasonable Modifications

Discrimination Basis:

Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)

Jails, Prisons, Detention Centers, and Other Institutions:

Habilitation (training/treatment)

Placement in mental health facilities

Medical/Mental Health Care:

Intellectual/Developmental Disability

Medical care, general