University of Michigan Law School
Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse
new search
page permalink
Case Name Unthaksinkun v. Porter IM-WA-0020
Docket / Court 2:11-cv-00588 ( W.D. Wash. )
State/Territory Washington
Case Type(s) Immigration
Case Summary
On April 7, 2001, indigent lawful permanent residents in Washington filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the Northwest Health ... read more >
On April 7, 2001, indigent lawful permanent residents in Washington filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington against the Washington State Health Care Authority (HCA) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs, represented by attorneys from the Northwest Health Law Advocates and the Public Interest Law Group, as well as private counsel, alleged that HCA had violated the Equal Protection Clause and the Due Process Clause. Plaintiffs, including five named members, sought class certification, declaratory relief, and injunctive relief.

Prior to the filing of the lawsuit, the state passed a bill that restricted immigrants' eligibility for the Washington Basic Health Program, which provided state-subsidized health insurance to indigent residents and on the same day, sent plaintiffs letters notifying them that they would be de-enrolled from the program in ten days.

Plaintiffs argued that the termination notices did not provide the adequate, meaningful, and timely notice required by the Due Process Clause. According to the amended complaint, HCA did not have enough information to determine immigration status prior to sending these notices. The notices failed to inform plaintiffs why they were ineligible for their benefits or to provide any individualized explanation for the HCA's determination that plaintiffs were not legal residents. Plaintiffs also assert that HCA violated the Equal Protection Clause by discriminating against plaintiffs based on their immigration status.

On September 28, 2011, the District Court (Judge James Robart) granted plaintiffs' motion to certify the Due Process class as defined by plaintiffs, with some minor revisions. Unthaksinkun v. Porter, C11-0588JLR, 2011 WL 4502050 (W.D. Wash. 2011). The Court also granted plaintiffs' motion to certify an Equal Protection class that includes individuals who were de-enrolled from Basic Health, but denied plaintiffs' request that the class also include future class members.

On October 24, 2011, the court issued a preliminary injunction, which incorporated the parties' agreed proposal for a preliminary injunction. The order required the defendant to review class member lists and identify additional members of the Equal Protection class; send notice of reenrollment rights to known class members; reinstate coverage for class members who pay premiums; follow specific protocols before seeking to de-enroll any class member based on immigration status; provide individual termination notification including specific information to any re-enrolled class member; and post information on the Basic Health web site.

On January 3, 2012, a mediator was appointed for the case. By March 15, 2013, the HCA had fully complied with the terms of the preliminary injunction and the members of the Due Process class had received their remedy according to the terms of the injunction.

The parties agreed that the claim for the Equal Protection class members would become moot in 2014 when funding for Basic Health would be eliminated, and lawfully present immigrants, currently enrolled in Basic Health, would be eligible to purchase insurance under the Affordable Care Act. The parties therefore requested to continue the trial from August 2013 to August 2014, with the expectation that the claims of the Equal Protection class would become irrelevant.

On February 13, 2014, the parties reached a final settlement, agreeing that since the protected class had already received appropriate relief through the preliminary injunction, the plaintiffs’ due process claim need not be litigated further. The defendants also agreed to pay $264,000 in attorneys’ fees. The court approved the settlement on March 6, 2014. On July 8, 2014, the court dismissed the remaining equal protection claim with prejudice.

Jennifer Bronson - 10/06/2013
Allison Hight - 02/19/2016


compress summary

- click to show/hide ALL -
Issues and Causes of Action
click to show/hide detail
Issues
Benefit Source
Medicaid
Constitutional Clause
Due Process
Equal Protection
Discrimination-basis
Immigration status
General
Public benefits (includes, e.g., in-state tuition, govt. jobs)
Immigration
Status/Classification
Medical/Mental Health
Medical care, general
Plaintiff Type
Private Plaintiff
Causes of Action Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
42 U.S.C. § 1983
Defendant(s) Washington State Health Care Authority
Plaintiff Description Plaintiffs are legal immigrants who were excluded from state medical health care coverage.
Indexed Lawyer Organizations None on record
Class action status sought Yes
Class action status granted Yes
Prevailing Party Plaintiff
Public Int. Lawyer Yes
Nature of Relief Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Attorneys fees
Source of Relief Settlement
Form of Settlement None on record
Order Duration not on record
Case Closing Year 2014
Case Ongoing No
Additional Resources
click to show/hide detail
Case Studies Threats to the Future of the Immigration Class Action
Washington University Journal of Law and Policy
By: Jill E. Family (Widener University School of Law)
Citation: 27 Wash. U. J.L. & Pol'y 71 (2008)
[ Detail ] [ External Link ]

Docket(s)
2:11−cv−00588 (W.D. Wash.) 07/08/2014
IM-WA-0020-9000.pdf | Detail
PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
General Documents
Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 04/07/2011 (2011 WL 1323319)
IM-WA-0020-0001.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Second Amended Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief 05/23/2011
IM-WA-0020-0002.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order on Motion for Class Certification and Motion for Preliminary Injunction 09/28/2011 (2011 WL 4502050) (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0020-0003.pdf | WESTLAW | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Preliminary Injunction 10/24/2011 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0020-0004.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Order Granting Preliminary Approval of a Partial Class Action Settlement and Agreement on Attorneys' Fees 11/01/2013 (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0020-0006.pdf | Detail
Document Source: PACER [Public Access to Court Electronic Records]
Judges Robart, James L. (W.D. Wash.)
IM-WA-0020-0003 | IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-0006 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Monitors/Masters None on record
Plaintiff's Lawyers Gross, Daniel S. (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0001 | IM-WA-0020-0002 | IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Marks-Dias, Blake Edward (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0001 | IM-WA-0020-0002 | IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Pierson, Michael (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0001 | IM-WA-0020-0002 | IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Varon, Janet (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0001 | IM-WA-0020-0002 | IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Defendant's Lawyers Baker, Elizabeth Anna-Marie (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-9000
Burke-Cain, Melissa A. (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Clark, William G. (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-9000
McKenna, Robert M. (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0004
Yu, Gail S. (Washington)
IM-WA-0020-0004 | IM-WA-0020-9000
Other Lawyers None on record

- click to show/hide ALL -

new search
page permalink

- top of page -