Case: M.K.B. v. Eggleston

1:05-cv-10446 | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Filed Date: Dec. 13, 2005

Closed Date: 2014

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On December 13, 2005, a group of battered immigrant wives and children of lawful U.S. residents filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the denial of food stamps, Medicaid, and other public assistance benefits to certain categories of immigrants. The plaintiffs alleged that they applied for public benefits at New York City Job Centers, but were improperly denied those benefits in violation of state and federal law. …

On December 13, 2005, a group of battered immigrant wives and children of lawful U.S. residents filed this lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging the denial of food stamps, Medicaid, and other public assistance benefits to certain categories of immigrants. The plaintiffs alleged that they applied for public benefits at New York City Job Centers, but were improperly denied those benefits in violation of state and federal law. They sought emergency injunctive relief and class certification.

The defendants denied the allegations and sought to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel from handling the case. The defendants argued that the plaintiffs' attorneys had submitted affidavits in support of a preliminary injunction and were therefore witnesses. The district court (Judge Jed Rakoff) denied the request to disqualify. 414 F. Supp. 2d 469.

On February 16, 2006, the district court entered a partial preliminary injunction that required certain immediate corrections to New York City and State public assistance agency systems relative to applications for public benefits by noncitizens. It then conducted a nine-day evidentiary hearing to further assess the case and determine whether additional preliminary injunctive relief and/or class certification were warranted.

On August 29, 2006, Judge Rakoff certified the class and expanded the preliminary injunction. Judge Rakoff found that there were a substantial likelihood plaintiffs would prevail given evidence of numerous instances of wrongful denials with respect to battered aliens who were eligible for benefits, due to inadequately trained state and City personnel and faulty training materials and policy directives. 445 F.Supp.2d 400. The defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied. M.K.B. v. Eggleston, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81704. Shortly thereafter, the parties reached a tentative settlement.

Following a fairness hearing on May 24, 2007, the court approved the settlement agreement by order dated June 26, 2007. Under the agreement, many class members would receive "automatic" case reviews to determine whether they were entitled to retroactive public benefits. The City agreed to train 150 immigrant liaisons to review and handle the case reviews of class members and process future applications by immigrants for public benefits. The City also agreed to refrain from denying, discontinuing, or reducing public benefits based on immigration status to eligible class members. The informal relief system created by the court's preliminary injunction would be continued and quality assurance audits would be conducted every six months. The court retained jurisdiction for four years to monitor compliance with the terms of the agreement.

On July 16, 2007, the court entered judgment on a settlement agreement regarding attorney's fees in which the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs' attorneys $2.85 million.

On September 29, 2011, the court ordered an extension of the settlement agreement through February 15, 2013. Minor adjustments were made to account for problems with statutes of limitations. The defendants appealed the court's order to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. The appeal was withdrawn, however, on April 9, 2012.

On July 3, 2013, the court again extended the term of the settlement, as well as the monitoring of compliance, for two additional cycles to August 15, 2014. On August 8, 2014, the court issued a final stipulation and order under which the City of New York and the State of New York agreed to pay $217,500 and $147,500, respectively, to plaintiff’s attorneys within 90 days.

The settlement expired on August 15, 2014. There have been no further updates to this case, and there is no reason to believe it is ongoing.

Summary Authors

Joshua Arocho (7/12/2012)

MJ Koo (3/12/2017)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4963592/parties/mkb-v-eggleston/


Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abramson, Ronald (New York)

Banks, Steven (New York)

Baum, Jennifer (New York)

Berkman, Deborah (New York)

Carey, Camille (New York)

Emery, Richard D. (New York)

Hickey, Caroline Jane (New York)

Holder, Adriene L. (New York)

Jacobs, Russell Winston (New York)

Kenneally, Kevin (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Abramson, Ronald (New York)

Banks, Steven (New York)

Baum, Jennifer (New York)

Berkman, Deborah (New York)

Carey, Camille (New York)

Emery, Richard D. (New York)

Hickey, Caroline Jane (New York)

Holder, Adriene L. (New York)

Jacobs, Russell Winston (New York)

Kenneally, Kevin (New York)

Lamb, Christopher D. (New York)

Rosenberg, Scott Alan (New York)

Saylor, Elizabeth Sykes (New York)

Schulman, Yisroel (New York)

Stevens, Jane Greengold (New York)

Weiner, Barbara (New York)

Welber, Susan (New York)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Calhoun, Martha Anne (New York)

Cardozo, Michael A. (New York)

Cuomo, Andrew M. (New York)

Kraft, Robert Lewis (New York)

Leong, Vincent (New York)

Levine, Jesse Ira (New York)

Momo, Jane Tobey (New York)

Rauchberg, Andrew James (New York)

Rubin, Ivan B. (New York)

Spitzer, Eliot (New York)

Other Attorney(s)

Rakoff, Jed Saul (New York)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

Docket (PACER)

Aug. 8, 2014 Docket
1

Complaint

Dec. 13, 2005 Complaint
1

Complaint Part 2

Dec. 13, 2005 Complaint
4

Memorandum of Law in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification

Dec. 13, 2005 Pleading / Motion / Brief
64

State Defendants' Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Motion for Preliminary Injunction And Class Certification

Jan. 30, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief

City Defendant's Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Plaintiffs' Motion for A Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification

Jan. 30, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief

Plaintiffs' Memorandum in Further Support of Their Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Class Certification

Jan. 31, 2006 Pleading / Motion / Brief
115

Opinion

414 F.Supp.2d 469

Feb. 15, 2006 Order/Opinion
116

Order

MKB v. Eggleston

Feb. 16, 2006 Order/Opinion
119

Opinion

2006 WL 453215

Feb. 24, 2006 Order/Opinion

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4963592/mkb-v-eggleston/

Last updated May 12, 2022, 8 p.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link
150

OPINION AND ORDER #93598; re: 13 MOTION to Certify Class. MOTION for Preliminary Injunction with Certificate of Service by hand on January 11, 2006. MOTION to Certify Class. MOTION for Preliminary Injunction with Certificate of Service by hand on January 11, 2006. For the foregoing reasons, the Court (i) grants plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction relief by reconfirming the relief set forth in the Order of 2/16/2006, and adding to it each of the provisions set f orth at pages 75-76 within; and (ii) grants plaintiffs' motion for class certification by certifying the class described at pages 77-78 within. Counsel for the parties are hereby directed to jointly telephone Chambers no later than 9/6/2006 to schedule further proceedings in this case. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 8/29/06) (kco, ) Modified on 8/31/2006 (lma, ).

Aug. 29, 2006 RECAP
157

ORDER denying 152 Motion for Reconsideration. An opinion elaborating the reasons for this ruling will issue shortly . (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 10/13/06) (cd, )

Oct. 13, 2006 RECAP
209

MEMORANDUM: Given that Paragraph 69 contains its own notice provision, one that the additional requirement in Paragraph 65 would render largely irrelevant, the Court concludes that the "meet and confer" requirement does not apply to motions to extend the Stipulation. As noted above, the plaintiffs satisfied the applicable twenty-day notice requirement. It was for the foregoing reasons that the Court issued its Order of September 30, 2011 extending the Stipulation against the State defendants until February 15, 2013. (Signed by Judge Jed S. Rakoff on 1/3/2012) (rdz)

Jan. 4, 2012 RECAP

State / Territory: New York

Case Type(s):

Immigration and/or the Border

Key Dates

Filing Date: Dec. 13, 2005

Closing Date: 2014

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Battered spouses and battered children of U.S. citizens or lawful permanent residents, eligible for state or federally funded public assistance, Medicaid, or food stamps, but who were denied those public benefits

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Attorney Organizations:

Legal Services/Legal Aid

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: Unknown

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Office of the Commissioner of the New York City Human Resources Administration (New York), City

Office of the Commissioner of the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (Albany), State

Office of the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Health (Albany), State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Amount Defendant Pays: $2,850,000

Order Duration: 2007 - 2014

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief granted

Issues

General:

Failure to supervise

Failure to train

Food service / nutrition / hydration

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

Type of Facility:

Government-run

Benefit Source:

Food stamps

Medicaid

Immigration/Border:

Constitutional rights

Family Separation