University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Dominguez v. Schwarzenegger DR-CA-0031
Docket / Court 4:09-cv-2306 ( N.D. Cal. )
State/Territory California
Case Type(s) Disability Rights-Pub. Accom.
Case Summary
On May 26, 2009, recipients of In-Home Service Support (IHSS) care filed a lawsuit under the Supremacy Clause against Arnold Schwarzenegger and other government officials in the Northern District Court of California. The Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and ... read more >
On May 26, 2009, recipients of In-Home Service Support (IHSS) care filed a lawsuit under the Supremacy Clause against Arnold Schwarzenegger and other government officials in the Northern District Court of California. The Plaintiffs, represented by private counsel, asked the court for injunctive and declaratory relief, claiming that in enacting Section 12306. 1 (d)(6), the California Legislature failed to consider the required factors of efficiency, economy, quality of care, and access to services prior to its enactment.

The IHSS program provides crucial medical assistance to low-income elderly people and disabled people as part of California's Medicaid program (also called "Medi-Cal"). The types of assistance that IHSS providers give are bathing, feeding, dressing, and providing the medications IHSS recipients require. The IHSS program allows recipients to reside safely in their homes and costs less than institutionalized care.

At the time of this case, there were over 360,000 IHSS providers giving assistance to 440,000 individuals in California. Providers are often relatives, such as a parent, that leave a full-time job in order to care for a child or other person. The wages began at $8.10 per hour to $12.10, but with the state's reductions decreased to at most $10.10 per hour. Under the Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq., such modifications must be approved by the Department of Health and Human Services Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) prior to being implemented. In September and December 2008, California submitted amendment proposals to CMS that incorporated most of the rate reductions the Legislature had already included in these statutes. Before CMS had completed its review the amendments, this suit and several others seeking injunctions to prevent the rate reductions were filed.

In the case at hand, Plaintiffs motioned for a preliminary injunction on June 4th, 2009. Defendants repeatedly challenged Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, objecting to the declarations of Plaintiffs' witnesses and evidence filed by the Plaintiff. After a series of back and forth objections, the Northern District Court for California (Judge Claudia Wilken) ruled in favor of the Plaintiffs and granted Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. Judge Wilken granted Plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction on June 26th, 2009, just a few days before IHSS cuts were set to take effect on July 1st, 2009.

In the Court's order, Judge Claudia Wilken concluded that the Plaintiffs established the necessary criterion for being granted a preliminary injunction. The Plaintiffs, according to Judge Wilken, established both a strong likelihood of success and that they would suffer irreparable injury if IHSS cuts were implemented. Judge Wilken found that State Defendants had violated the procedural requirements of the Medicaid Act, including the consideration of how IHSS cuts would affect efficiency, economy, and quality of care given by IHSS providers to elderly and disabled recipients (42 U. S. C. §1396a(a)(30)(A)). State Defendants did not consider factors laid in the federal statute when they decided to implement California Welfare and Institutions Code § 12301(d)(6).

The Defendants appealed the preliminary injunction to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which issued a decision on March 3, 2010. Judge Milan D. Smith reasoned that the factors of efficiency, economy, and quality of care applied to the statute in dispute, the California Welfare and Institutions Code Section 12306.1(d)(6). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also wrote in the opinion that the legislative report Defendants had submitted regarding the quality and access in the IHSS system was inadequate under the Medicaid provision. Other important parts of the opinion included the Court's finding that Plaintiffs did show irreparable harm in showing that IHSS providers would be harmed by reduction in their hourly wages and benefits, in addition to IHSS recipients. The Court of Appeals found that the balance of hardships and the public interest also weighed in favor of implementing the preliminary injunction. In deciding to grant or deny a preliminary injunction, the Court of Appeals needed to review the District Court's finding for abuse of discretion. The Court of Appeals found no abuse of discretion and agreed with the District Court's first decision. Dominguez et al v. Schwarzenegger, 596 F.3d 1087 (N.D. Cal. 2009).

On March 24, 2010, the Defendants petitioned the United States Supreme Court to review the decision of the Ninth Circuit holding that the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution could serve as a basis for a cause of action in this case. During the period between the Appellate Court decision and the Supreme Court's grant of review, the case remained active at the District Court level. On June 8, 2010, prior to the Supreme Court's grant of certiorari, the District Court granted class certification, and on July 2, 2010, it ordered a temporary restraining order prohibiting the Defendants from lowering hourly wages and benefit contributions of IHSS workers in the County of Fresno. The Supreme Court granted certiorari review on January 18, 2011, consolidating this case with four others that raised the same issue. These four cases were Independent Living Center of Southern California, Inc. v. Shewry (Clearinghouse case code PB-CA-0016), Managed Pharmacy Care v. Maxwell-Jolly (PB-CA-0019), California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly (PB-CA-0020), and Santa Rosa Memorial Hospital v. Shewry (Docket #: 3:08-cv-05173-SC).

Oral argument before the Supreme Court took place on October 3, 2011. After oral argument and while the cases were pending before the Supreme Court, CMS approved California's amendments to its Medicaid plan. In light of this, the Supreme Court declined to issue a ruling on whether the Supremacy Clause could serve as a basis for a private suit to enforce Title XIX against a state. Instead, the Supreme Court vacated the Ninth Circuit Court's decision and remanded the case to the Ninth Circuit for reconsideration, with instructions to take into account CMS's approval of the amendments. Douglas v. Independent Living Center of Southern California, 132 S. Ct. 1204 (U.S. 2012).

After the Supreme Court decision was issued, the parties entered settlement mediation. On March 26, 2013, the parties were granted a joint motion to stay proceedings at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals pending the approval of the class-action settlement agreement at the District Court level. On April 4, 2013, the District Court granted preliminary approval of a settlement. Final approval of the settlement was granted on May 23, 2013.

The Settlement also resolved Oster v. Lightbourne (In the Clearinghouse as DR-CA-0027: V.L. v. Wagner, see related cases), a suit that raised similar issues. For the purpose of the settlement, the plaintiff classes from these two suits were combined and expanded to include all IHSS recipients who resided in Alameda, Calaveras, Contra Costa, Fresno, Los Angeles, Madera, Marin, Mariposa, Mendocino, Monterey, Napa, Placer, Riverside, Sacramento, San Benito, San Francisco, San Joaquin, San Luis Obispo, San Mateo, Santa Barbara, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, Solano, Sonoma, Yolo, and Yuba counties. The settlement would prevent the IHSS wage cuts from coming into effect, keeping them at the statutory rates that were in place prior to the 2009 amendments contested in Dominguez. The terms also included an eight-percent cut in IHSS employee service hours for twelve months, which would then be replaced by a seven-percent cut in service hours, contingent on the passing of the legislation described below. These cuts in service hours would be inclusive of and not in addition to an already existing 3.4 percent cut in hours.

The attached legislation would repeal an earlier bill that cut authorized IHSS service hours by twenty percent across the board, implementation of which was delayed pending the outcome of these suits and related litigation. 12306.1(d)(6), the amendment which lowered IHSS wages, would also be repealed. If this legislation is not passed by the California Legislature and delivered to the Governor by November 1, 2013, then the Parties shall meet and confer to determine whether they can agree upon a mutually acceptable solution. If the Parties do not reach a new agreement, then any Party would be able to declare the settlement agreement void.

No attorneys' fees or costs were awarded.

This summary is current as of July 2013. It will be updated to reflect whether the State Legislature passed the legislation required by the settlement.

Julianne Nowicki - 05/27/2010
Alex Colbert-Taylor - 07/18/2013


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Medicaid
Content of Injunction
Preliminary relief granted
Defendant-type
Hospital/Health Department
Jurisdiction-wide
Disability
disability, unspecified
Integrated setting
Discrimination-basis
Disability (inc. reasonable accommodations)
General
Disparate Impact
Disparate Treatment
Government Services (specify)
Habilitation (training/treatment)
Payment for care
Public assistance grants
Relative caretakers
Staff (number, training, qualifications, wages)
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Medical care, unspecified
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Title XIX of the Social Security (Medicaid) Act, 42 U.S.C §1396
State law
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of the State of California
David Maxwell-Jolly, Director of the California Department of Health Care Services
Fresno County
Fresno County In-Home Supportive Services Public Authority
John A. Wagner, Director of the California Department of Social Services
John Chiang, California State Controller
Plaintiff Description In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS) Providers and recipients
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer No
Nature of Relief Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief Litigation
Form of Settlement Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree
Order Duration 2013 - n/a
Case Closing Year n/a
Case Ongoing Yes
Case Listing DR-CA-0027 : V.L. v. Wagner (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0029 : Gray Panthers v. Schwarzenegger (N.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0016 : Independent Living Center of Southern California v. Maxwell-Jolly (C.D. Cal.)
PB-CA-0020 : California Pharmacists Association v. Maxwell-Jolly (C.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0030 : Independent Living Center v. Maxwell-Jolly (C.D. Cal.)
Docket(s)
09-1158 (U.S. Supreme Court) 03/26/2012
DR-CA-0031-9002.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
4:09-cv-3798 (N.D. Cal.) 05/02/2013
DR-CA-0031-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
09-16359 (U.S. Court of Appeals) 07/08/2013
DR-CA-0031-9001.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint 05/26/2009
DR-CA-0031-0001.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS' NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 06/04/2009
DR-CA-0031-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS' EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SO THAT RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED BEFORE JULY 1, 2009, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER FINDING A RULING ON PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/04/2009
DR-CA-0031-0003.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
OBJECTIONS TO THE DECLARATION OF JOHN F. SCHNELLE 06/11/2009
DR-CA-0031-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF JUSZTINA TRAUM 06/11/2009
DR-CA-0031-0005.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
OBJECTIONS TO DECLARATION OF CANDACE HOWES 06/11/2009
DR-CA-0031-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO EVIDENCE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/15/2009
DR-CA-0031-0007.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION BY DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF FRESNO AND FRESNO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO RULE 12(b)(1) & (6) OF THE FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 06/16/2009
DR-CA-0031-0008.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
DEFENDANTS', COUNTY OF FRESNO AND FRESNO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES, NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO SEVER [FRCP, RULE 21] 06/18/2009
DR-CA-0031-0009.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO STATE DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/19/2009
DR-CA-0031-0010.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO COUNTY DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF COUNTY’S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/19/2009
DR-CA-0031-0011.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STATE DEFENDANTS’ OBJECTIONS TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR REPLY MEMORANDUM RE MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/24/2009
DR-CA-0031-0012.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER GRANTING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/26/2009 (2009 WL 1844989) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0013.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ EMERGENCY EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/29/2009
DR-CA-0031-0014.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION FOR ENFORCEMENT OF PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 06/29/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0015.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR A STAY 06/29/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0016.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS FROM 06/25/2009 07/02/2009
DR-CA-0031-0017.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 07/07/2009
DR-CA-0031-0018.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO SHORTEN TIME FOR PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR A MORE SPECIFIC PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION SO THAT RELIEF CAN BE GRANTED BY JULY 9, 2009 OR AS SOON THEREAFTER AS P 07/07/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0019.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER CLARIFYING INJUNCTION AND DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS 07/13/2009 (2009 WL 2079718) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0021.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER DENYING EMERGENCY MOTION FOR A STAY OF THE DISTRICT COURT'S JUNE 26, 2009 PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 07/14/2009
DR-CA-0031-0023.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ EX PARTE MOTION TO ENLARGE TIME FOR FRESNO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS AND TO SEVER CLAIMS 07/15/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0024.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STATE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND A FURTHER MORE SPECIFIC INJUNCTION 07/20/2009
DR-CA-0031-0027.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER FURTHER CLARIFYING INJUNCTION 07/24/2009 (2009 WL 2356151) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0028.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ OPPOSITION TO FRESNO DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS PLAINTIFFS’ CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO FRCP 12(b)(1), (6) AND TO SEVER CLAIMS 08/06/2009
DR-CA-0031-0029.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STIPULATION TO CONTINUE HEARING DATE FOR DEFENDANTS COUNTY OF FRESNO'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO SEVER CLAIMS; ORDER THEREON AS MODIFIED 08/18/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0030.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR CIVIL CONTEMPT SANCTIONS AND ATTORNEYS’ FEES 09/09/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0031.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASE SHOULD BE RELATED TO V.L. v. WAGNER, CASE NO. C 09-04668 JCS 10/01/2009
DR-CA-0031-0032.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER RELATING CASE 10/06/2009 (E.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0033.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER DENYING FRESNO DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS AND SEVER 10/15/2009 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0034.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ANSWER OF FRESNO COUNTY AND FRESNO COUNTY IN-HOME SUPPORTIVE SERVICES PUBLIC AUTHORITY TO PLAINTIFFS' FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 11/30/2009
DR-CA-0031-0036.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 01/04/2010
DR-CA-0031-0037.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
AMENDED ORDER 01/15/2010
DR-CA-0031-0038.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
OBJECTIONS AND MOTION TO STRIKE CERTAIN DECLARATIONS FILED BY PLAINTIFFS IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION; ORDER RE THE SAME 01/28/2010
DR-CA-0031-0039.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
NOTICE OF RELATED CASE PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 3-12 TO BE FILED IN CASE NO. c. 09-02306 (CW); ADMINISTRATIVE MOTION TO CONSIDER WHETHER CASES SHOULD BE RELATED PURSUANT TO CIVIL L.R. 7-11 01/29/2010
DR-CA-0031-0040.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
RELATED CASE ORDER 02/02/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0041.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTIONS TO STATE DEFENDANTS' EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF STATE'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 02/11/2010
DR-CA-0031-0042.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ OBJECTIONS TO FRESNO DEFENDANTS’ EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF FRESNO DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR CLASS CERTIFICATION 02/11/2010
DR-CA-0031-0043.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
OPINION 03/03/2010 (596 F.3d 1087)
DR-CA-0031-0044.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STIPULATION FOR PROTECTIVE ORDER RELATING TO CONFIDENTIAL RECORDS PRODUCED BY PARTIES AND ORDER THEREON 03/19/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0045.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
PLAINTIFFS’ NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO COMPEL PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT 04/02/2010
DR-CA-0031-0046.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER OF REFERENCE TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE 04/05/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0047.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
STATE DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL 04/21/2010
DR-CA-0031-0048.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
ORDER GRANTING THE COUNTY OF SAN MATEO’S MISCELLANEOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUEST TO BE GRANTED AMICUS CURIAE STATUS AND TO FILE AN AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 05/16/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0022.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification 06/08/2010 (270 F.R.D. 477) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0056.pdf | WESTLAW| LEXIS | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application for a Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue 06/29/2010 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0049.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Plaintiffs' Application for A Temporary Restraining Order and Order to Show Cause Why Preliminary Injunction Should Not Issue 07/02/2010 (2010 WL 2673715) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0055.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting In Part Plaintiffs' Motion to Compel (Docket # 344); and Granting In Part Defendants' Request for Additional Depositions (Docket # 388) 08/25/2010 (2010 WL 3341038) (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0051.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 08/31/2010
DR-CA-0031-0050.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Stipulation and Order Staying All District Court Proceedings in This Action Pending Resolution of Related Proceedings in the U.S. Supreme Court 03/02/2011 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0057.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Supreme Court Opinion 02/22/2012 (132 S.Ct. 1204)
DR-CA-0031-0052.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of Class Settlement Agreement, Directing Notice to the Class, Amending the Class Certification Order, Dismissing the Defendants Brown and Chiang, and Setting a Schedule and Fairness Hearing 04/04/2013 (N.D. Cal.)
DR-CA-0031-0054.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Settlement Agreement (Proposed) 05/10/2013
DR-CA-0031-0058.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Breyer, Stephen Gerald (SCOTUS, First Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0052
Canby, William Cameron Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0023
Fletcher, William A. (Ninth Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0038 | DR-CA-0031-0044
Larson, James L. (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
DR-CA-0031-0051
Reinhardt, Stephen Roy (Ninth Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0038 | DR-CA-0031-0044
Roberts, John Glover Jr. (SCOTUS, D.C. Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0052
Smith, Milan Dale Jr. (Ninth Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0038 | DR-CA-0031-0044
Thomas, Sidney Runyan (Ninth Circuit)
DR-CA-0031-0023
Wilken, Claudia Ann (N.D. Cal.) [Magistrate]
DR-CA-0031-0013 | DR-CA-0031-0015 | DR-CA-0031-0016 | DR-CA-0031-0019 | DR-CA-0031-0021 | DR-CA-0031-0022 | DR-CA-0031-0028 | DR-CA-0031-0030 | DR-CA-0031-0031 | DR-CA-0031-0033 | DR-CA-0031-0034 | DR-CA-0031-0041 | DR-CA-0031-0045 | DR-CA-0031-0047 | DR-CA-0031-0049 | DR-CA-0031-0054 | DR-CA-0031-0055 | DR-CA-0031-0056 | DR-CA-0031-0057 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Arkush, Anne Nelson (California)
DR-CA-0031-0001 | DR-CA-0031-0002 | DR-CA-0031-0003 | DR-CA-0031-0010 | DR-CA-0031-0011 | DR-CA-0031-0014 | DR-CA-0031-0018 | DR-CA-0031-0029 | DR-CA-0031-0032 | DR-CA-0031-0037 | DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-0058 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Berzon, Stephen P. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0001 | DR-CA-0031-0002 | DR-CA-0031-0003 | DR-CA-0031-0010 | DR-CA-0031-0011 | DR-CA-0031-0014 | DR-CA-0031-0018 | DR-CA-0031-0029 | DR-CA-0031-0032 | DR-CA-0031-0037 | DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-0058 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001 | DR-CA-0031-9002
Cannizo, Craig J. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0040
Cannizzo, Craig J. (California)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Carman, Lynn S. (California)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Cincotta, Caroline (California)
DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Kronland, Scott A. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0001 | DR-CA-0031-0002 | DR-CA-0031-0003 | DR-CA-0031-0010 | DR-CA-0031-0011 | DR-CA-0031-0014 | DR-CA-0031-0018 | DR-CA-0031-0029 | DR-CA-0031-0032 | DR-CA-0031-0037 | DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-0058 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Leyton, Stacey M. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0001 | DR-CA-0031-0002 | DR-CA-0031-0003 | DR-CA-0031-0010 | DR-CA-0031-0011 | DR-CA-0031-0014 | DR-CA-0031-0018 | DR-CA-0031-0029 | DR-CA-0031-0032 | DR-CA-0031-0037 | DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-0058 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001 | DR-CA-0031-9002
Maynard, Deanne (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Phillips, Carter G (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Reagan, Mark E. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0040
Sherman, Greg B. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0040
Thoreen, Peder J. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0001 | DR-CA-0031-0002 | DR-CA-0031-0003 | DR-CA-0031-0010 | DR-CA-0031-0011 | DR-CA-0031-0014 | DR-CA-0031-0018 | DR-CA-0031-0029 | DR-CA-0031-0032 | DR-CA-0031-0037 | DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-0058 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
White, Emily Butler (California)
DR-CA-0031-0042 | DR-CA-0031-0043 | DR-CA-0031-0046 | DR-CA-0031-0050 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Brown, Gregory David (California)
DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Brown, Edmund G. Jr. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0007 | DR-CA-0031-0012 | DR-CA-0031-0027 | DR-CA-0031-0048
Buchanan, Timothy John (California)
DR-CA-0031-0004 | DR-CA-0031-0005 | DR-CA-0031-0006 | DR-CA-0031-0008 | DR-CA-0031-0009 | DR-CA-0031-0036 | DR-CA-0031-0039 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Bunshoft, Jennifer A. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0048 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Carson, Susan (California)
DR-CA-0031-0007 | DR-CA-0031-0012 | DR-CA-0031-0027 | DR-CA-0031-0048 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Humes, James M. (California)
DR-CA-0031-9001
Jeffcoach, Mandy L. (California)
DR-CA-0031-0039 | DR-CA-0031-9000
Schwartz, Karin S. (California)
DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9002
Woods, Michael Gary (California)
DR-CA-0031-0004 | DR-CA-0031-0005 | DR-CA-0031-0006 | DR-CA-0031-0008 | DR-CA-0031-0009 | DR-CA-0031-0036 | DR-CA-0031-0039 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Zwibelman, Michael A. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-0027 | DR-CA-0031-9000 | DR-CA-0031-9001
Other Lawyers Ball, Frederick R. (Illinois)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Bullock, Louis Werner (Oklahoma)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Bursch, John J. (Michigan)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Hallward-Driemeier, Douglas Harry (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Joseph, Lawrence J (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Kneedler, Edwin S. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
McConnell, Michael W (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Silberman, David Abraham (California)
DR-CA-0031-9000
Smith, Paul M. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Untereiner, Alan (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Verrilli, Donald B. Jr. (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Vladeck, Stephen I (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002
Wolfson, Paul Reinherz (District of Columbia)
DR-CA-0031-9002

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -