M.G. v. Armijo

1

M.G., a minor by and through her mother Christina Garcia, Plaintiff, v. KARI ARMIJO, in her official capacity as Secretary for the Human Services Department, State of New Mexico, and HUMAN SERVICES DEPARTMENT, Defendants

No. 1:22-cv-00325-MIS-DLM

United States District Court, D. New Mexico

September 5, 2024

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO RECONSIDER DENIAL OF ASSOCIATIONAL STANDING

MARGARET STRICKLAND UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

THIS MATTER is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion to Reconsider Denial of Associational Standing, ECF No. 457 filed August 6, 2024. Defendant filed a Response on August 20, 2024, ECF No. 464, to which Plaintiff filed a Reply on August 27, 2024, ECF No. 470. Upon consideration of the Parties' submissions, the record, and the relevant law the Court will GRANT the Motion to Reconsider.

I. Background

On April 28, 2022, Disability Rights New Mexico, Inc. (“DRNM”) and three minors, M.G., A.C., and C.V. (“the Named Plaintiffs”),^[1] filed a Class Action Complaint against the New Mexico Human Services Department (“HSD”) and the Secretary of HSD-who administer the Medicaid Managed Care program formerly known as Centennial Care 2.0^[2]-as well as three Managed Care Organizations (“MCOs”).^[3] ECF No. 1 ¶ 1. The Complaint alleges that the Named Plaintiffs “are medically fragile children who are eligible to receive medically necessary private-duty nursing care” as part of the early and periodic screening, diagnostic, and treatment (“EPSDT”) services Defendants are required to provide pursuant to the Medicaid Act, Title XIX of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396d(a)(4)(B). Id. ¶¶ 1, 58-66. It alleges that each Named Plaintiff is a “Medically Fragile Waiver participant and Centennial Care 2.0 beneficiary[,]” id. ¶¶ 102, 124, 143, and has been approved for a certain number of hours of private duty nursing (“PDN”) services per month by New Mexico's Medicaid program, but Defendants are failing to provide them with adequate hours of PDN services. Id. ¶¶ 1-2, 13-15.

The Complaint contains the following allegations regarding DRNM's associational standing:

16. DRNM is the agency designated by the state of New Mexico as the state's Protection and Advocacy organization, authorized by federal statues [sic] to pursue legal remedies on behalf of persons with disabilities. See Developmental Disabilities Assistance and Bill of Rights Act (the DD Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 15001 et seq. (2000); the Protection and Advocacy of Individual Rights (the PAIR Act), 29 U.S.C. § 794e (1994); the Protection and Advocacy for Mentally Ill. Individuals Act (the PAMII Act), 42 U.S.C. §§ 10801 et seq. (1997).

17. DRNM has associational standing to assert the legal rights on behalf of all Centennial Care 2.0 beneficiaries under the age of 21 in New Mexico who have been approved for private duty nursing services by Defendants, but are not receiving the nursing services at the level approved by Defendants.

18. Respecting the causes of action stated in this Complaint, such constituents of DRNM have standing to sue in their own right.

19. The interests of access to medically necessary services and to be free from discrimination on the basis of disability are germane to DRNM's purpose.

Id. ¶¶ 16-19.

Three claims remain: (1) Plaintiffs' Seventh Cause of Action alleges a violation of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794, id. ¶¶ 236-46; (2) Plaintiffs' Eighth Cause of Action alleges a violation of Section 1557 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, 42 U.S.C. § 18116, id. ¶¶ 247-59; and (3) Plaintiffs' Ninth Cause of Action alleges a violation of the EPSDT provisions of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396, et seq., id. ¶¶ 260-63.

On June 30, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a Motion for Class Certification and to Recognize Associational Standing of DRNM. ECF No. 235. Plaintiffs' Motion devoted a single sentence to the associational standing issue, to wit:

Finally, separate, and apart from the question of class certification, Disability Rights New Mexico (“DRNM”) requests that this Court recognize its associational standing to bring suit on behalf of all medically fragile children in New Mexico who are not receiving the private duty nursing services for which they are qualified.

Id. at 23 (citing Waldrop v. N.M. Human Servs. Dep't, Civ. No. 14-047 JH/KBM, 2015 WL 13665460, at *5-6 (D.N.M. Mar. 10, 2015) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 15043(a)(2)(i)); Lewis v. N.M. Dep't of Health, No. CIV 99-0021 MV/JHG, 2002 WL 35649595, at *7 (D.N.M. Nov. 5, 2002)). Defendants filed a Response opposing Plaintiffs' Motion. ECF No. 261.

In the Reply brief filed in support of their Motion to Recognize Associational Standing, Plaintiffs argued that 42 U.S.C. § 15043 “bestows statutory standing on DRNM to bring suit on behalf of all medically fragile children in New Mexico with developmental disabilities, as the recognized protection and advocacy system for New Mexico[.]” ECF No. 287 at 8 (discussing Waldrop, 2015 WL 13665460, at *5-6).

On November 14, 2023, the Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs' Motion. See Tr. of Nov. 14, 2023 Hr'g, ECF No. 372 at 104-20.

On December 12, 2023, the Court issued an Order granting Plaintiffs' Motion for Class Certification and denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Recognize the Associational Standing of DRNM. ECF No. 369 at 39-42. As to the former, the Court certified the following class: “All Centennial Care 2.0 beneficiaries under the age of 21 in New Mexico who have been approved for private duty nursing services by Defendants, but are not receiving the nursing services at the level approved by Defendants due to limited availability of services[.]” Id. at 43. As to latter, the Court agreed with Judge Herrera's conclusion in Waldrop that DRNM has associational standing to sue on behalf of New Mexicans enrolled in the Developmental Disability Waiver, 2015 WL 13665460, at *6, but found that

the Complaint does not allege-and Plaintiffs have provided no evidence-that any individuals enrolled in the Developmental Disability Waiver have been approved for private duty nursing services by Defendants and are not receiving the nursing services at the level for which they were approved due to limited availability of services. Stated differently, Plaintiffs have not alleged or established that any of DRNM's “members” have suffered an injury in fact. Therefore, Plaintiffs have not established that DRNM's members would have standing to sue in their own right, and DRNM consequently lacks associational standing. HEAL Utah v. PacifiCorp, 375 F.Supp.3d 1231, 1241-47 (D. Utah 2019) (concluding that environmental organizations lacked associational standing because they failed to establish that one of their members suffered an injury in fact).

Id. at 42.

On August 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the instant Motion to Reconsider Denial of Associational Standing.^[4] ECF No. 457. Defendants filed a Response on August 20, 2024, ECF No. 464, to which Plaintiffs filed a Reply on August 27, 2024, ECF No. 470.

II. Legal Standard

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) provides that an interlocutory order “may be revised at any time before the entry of a” final judgment. Accordingly, “district courts generally remain free to reconsider their earlier interlocutory orders.” Been v. O.K. Indus., 495 F.3d 1217, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007). This power is not subject to any particular standard or framework. See Kruskal v. Martinez, 429 F.Supp.3d 1012, 1024 (D.N.M. 2019) (observing that Rule 54(b) “(i) provides that a district court can freely reconsider its prior rulings; and (ii) puts no limit or governing standard on the district court's ability to do so, other than that it must do so ‘before the entry of judgment[,]'” and further observing that [t]he Tenth Circuit has not cabined district courts' discretion beyond what rule 54(b) provides: ‘[D]istrict courts generally remain free to reconsider their earlier interlocutory orders'”) (quoting Been, 495 F.3d at 1225). Rather, orders “short of a final decree” may be reopened at the district judge's discretion. Price v. Philpot, 420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005) (quoting Moses H. Cone Mem'l Hosp. v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U.S. 1, 12 (1983)).

III. Discussion

The Court finds that reconsideration is appropriate because DRNM was not required to allege or prove that any individuals enrolled in the Developmental Disability Waiver have been approved for private duty nursing services by Defendants and are not receiving the nursing services at the level for which they were approved due to limited availability of services. Thus, the Court's conclusion that DRNM lacks associational standing rested on a faulty premise, which the Court endeavors to correct in this Order.

The doctrine of standing “is an essential and unchanging part of the case-or-controversy requirement of Article III.” Lujan v. Def, of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992). As such, “[a]bsent a plaintiff with constitutional standing, federal courts lack jurisdiction.” S. Utah Wilderness Alliance v. Palma, 707 F.3d 1143, 1153 (10th Cir. 2013) (citing Summers v. Earth Island Inst., 555 U.S. 488, 192-93 (2009)). To satisfy Article III's standing requirement, a plaintiff must show:

(1) it has suffered an “injury in fact” that is (a) concrete and particularized and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical; (2) the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged action of the defendant; and (3) it is likely, as opposed to merely speculative, that the injury will be redressed by a favorable decision.

Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Env't Servs (TOC), Inc., 528 U.S. 167, 180-81 (2000). Standing is generally determined on the allegations contained in the pleadings, Gladstone Realtors v. Vill. of Bellwood, 441 U.S. 91, 115 & n.31 (1979)...