Fitzmorris et al v. NH Department of Health and Human Services, Commissioner et al

U N I T E D S T AT E S D I S T R I C T C O U R T
F O R T H E D I S T R I C T O F N E W H AMP S H I R E
E m ily F it zm o r r is , e t a l.
v. 	Ca se No. 21-cv-25-P B
Opin ion No. 2024 DNH 003
N e w H a m p s h ir e D e p a r t m e n t o f
H e a lt h a n d H u m a n S e r v ic e s
C o m m is s io n e r L o r i We a v e r , e t a l.
ME MO R AN D U M AN D O R D E R
On Novem ber 27, 2023, I cer t ified a cla ss of cer t a in pa r t icipa n t s in New
H a m psh ir e’s Ch oices for In depen den ce (CF I) Wa iver pr ogr a m , a st a t e
Medica id pr ogr a m t h a t pr ovides h om e a n d com m u n it y-ba sed ca r e ser vices t o
a du lt s wit h disa bilit ies. Th e defen da n t s sou gh t in t er locu t or y r eview of t h e
cla ss cer t ifica t ion or der a n d n ow m ove t o st a y pr oceedin gs du r in g t h e
pen den cy of t h eir a ppea l. Beca u se I con clu de t h a t t h e defen da n t s h a ve n ot
dem on st r a t ed t h a t a st a y is wa r r a n t ed a t t h e pr esen t t im e, I den y t h eir
m ot ion wit h ou t pr eju dice t o t h eir a bilit y t o r er a ise t h eir a r gu m en t s sh ou ld
cir cu m st a n ces ch a n ge.
I . 	B AC KG R O U N D
Th e n a m ed pla in t iffs filed t h e in st a n t su it a ga in st va r iou s st a t e
officia ls r espon sible for C CF I Wa iver pr ogr a m , cla im in g t h a t t h e defen da n t s’
a lleged fa ilu r e t o pr ovide CF I Wa iver pa r t icipa n t s wit h t h e fu ll a m ou n t of
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 1 of 10

2
ser vices for wh ich t h ey h a ve been a u t h or ized viola t es t h e Am er ica n s wit h
Disa bilit ies Act , 42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 et seq.; t h e Reh a bilit a t ion Act , 29 U.S.C.
§§ 794 et seq.; a n d t h e Medica id Act , 42 U.S.C. § 1396(a )(8). Th e pla in t iffs
m oved t o cer t ify a cla ss of sim ila r ly sit u a t ed in dividu a ls pu r su a n t t o F eder a l
Ru le of Civil P r ocedu r e 23(b)(2), wh ich a u t h or izes cla ss t r ea t m en t in ca ses
seekin g in divisible in ju n ct ive r elief. I den ied t h e pla in t iffs’ m ot ion wit h ou t
pr eju dice a ft er con clu din g t h a t t h e pr offer ed eviden ce fa iled t o sa t isfy Ru le
23(a )(2)’s com m on a lit y r equ ir em en t .
Th e pla in t iffs su bsequ en t ly filed a r en ewed m ot ion for cla ss
cer t ifica t ion , wh ich I gr a n t ed.1 Th e defen da n t s pr om pt ly filed a pet it ion wit h
t h e F ir st Cir cu it u n der Ru le 23(f), seekin g per m ission t o pu r su e a n
in t er locu t or y a ppea l of t h e cla ss cer t ifica t ion or der . Th e defen da n t s’ pet it ion
ch a llen ges m y con clu sion s t h a t (1) t h e pla in t iffs wer e n ot r equ ir ed t o pr ove
t h eir cla ss wa s object ively a scer t a in a ble ba sed on t h e F ir st Cir cu it ’s decision s
in Ya ffe v. P ower s, 454 F .2d 1362 (1st Cir . 1972), a n d Cr osby v. Socia l
1 	Th e cer t ified cla ss con sist s of:
CF I Wa iver pa r t icipa n t s wh o, du r in g t h e pen den cy of t h is la wsu it , h a ve
been pla ced a t ser iou s r isk of u n ju st ified in st it u t ion a liza t ion beca u se
Defen da n t s, by a ct or om ission , fa il t o en su r e t h a t t h e CF I pa r t icipa n t s
r eceive t h e com m u n it y-ba sed lon g t er m ca r e ser vices a n d su ppor t s
t h r ou gh t h e wa iver pr ogr a m for wh ich t h ey h a ve been fou n d eligible
a n d a ssessed t o n eed.
Doc. 165 a t 79.
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 2 of 10

3
Secu r it y Adm in ist r a t ion , 796 F .2d 576 (1st Cir . 1986), a n d (2) t h e pla in t iffs’
eviden ce wa s su fficien t t o sa t isfy com m on a lit y con sist en t wit h t h e Su pr em e
Cou r t ’s decision in Wa l-Ma r t St or es, In c. v. Du kes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011), a n d
t h e F ir st Cir cu it ’s decision in P a r en t /P r ofession a l Advoca cy Lea gu e v. Cit y of
Spr in gfield, 934 F .3d 13 (1st Cir . 2019). T h e F ir st Cir cu it h a s yet t o r u le on
t h e defen da n t s’ pet it ion . Th e defen da n t s n ow m ove t o st a y pr oceedin gs in t h is
cou r t du r in g t h e pen den cy of t h eir a ppea l, a n d t h e pla in t iffs object .
I I . 	S T A N D AR D O F R EVI E W
Th e filin g of a pet it ion u n der Ru le 23(f) “does n ot st a y pr oceedin gs in
t h e dist r ict cou r t u n less t h e dist r ict ju dge or t h e cou r t of a ppea ls so or der s.”
Beca u se a “st a y is a n in t r u sion in t o t h e or din a r y pr ocess of a dm in ist r a t ion
a n d ju dicia l r eview,” it is “n ot a m a t t er of r igh t ” bu t r a t h er “a n exer cise of
ju dicia l discr et ion .” Nken v. H older , 556 U.S. 418, 427, 433 (2009) (clea n ed
u p). “Th e pa r t y r equ est in g a st a y bea r s t h e bu r den of sh owin g t h a t t h e
cir cu m st a n ces ju st ify a n exer cise of t h a t discr et ion .” Id. a t 433-434.
I I I . 	AN AL YS I S
To det er m in e wh et h er a st a y is wa r r a n t ed, I con sider “(1) wh et h er t h e
st a y a pplica n t h a s m a de a st r on g sh owin g t h a t h e is likely t o su cceed on t h e
m er it s; (2) wh et h er t h e a pplica n t will be ir r epa r a bly in ju r ed a bsen t a st a y; (3)
wh et h er issu a n ce of t h e st a y will su bst a n t ia lly in ju r e t h e ot h er pa r t ies
in t er est ed in t h e pr oceedin g; a n d (4) wh er e t h e pu blic in t er est lies.” H ilt on v.
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 3 of 10

4
Br a u n skill, 481 U.S. 770, 776 (1987). I con sider ea ch fa ct or in t u r n , pa yin g
pa r t icu la r a t t en t ion t o t h e fir st a n d secon d fa ct or s, wh ich a r e “t h e m ost
cr it ica l.” Nken , 556 U.S. a t 434.
Wh et h er t h e defen da n t s h a ve dem on st r a t ed a su fficien t likelih ood of
su ccess on t h e m er it s t u r n s on “t wo con sider a t ion s: fir st , wh et h er [t h ey] will
obt a in per m ission t o a ppea l,” a n d secon d, wh et h er t h e a ppea l “r a ise[s]
ser iou s a n d difficu lt qu est ion s of la w in a n a r ea wh er e t h e la w is som ewh a t
u n clea r .” P icon e v. Sh ir e, LLC, No. 1:16-cv-12396-ADB, 2020 WL 3051871, a t
*2 (D. Ma ss. J u n e 8, 2020) (clea n ed u p).
I h a ve n o dou bt t h a t t h e defen da n t s’ a ppea l r a ises “ser iou s a n d difficu lt
qu est ion s of la w” wor t h y of t h e F ir st Cir cu it ’s con sider a t ion . Id. (qu ot in g
Ca n t er bu r y Liqu or s & P a n t r y v. Su lliva n , 999 F . Su pp. 144, 150 (D. Ma ss.
1998)). Applyin g t h e com m on a lit y fr a m ewor k est a blish ed in Wa l-Ma r t t o
ca ses, su ch a s t h is, t h a t r a ise ch a llen ges t o syst em ic deficien cies ca n pr ove
qu it e difficu lt , a n d dist r ict cou r t s cou ld ben efit fr om t h e Cir cu it ’s gu ida n ce on
h ow t o a ppr oa ch su ch ch a llen ges.
Non et h eless, t h e defen da n t s h a ve n ot m a de a su fficien t sh owin g t h a t
t h e F ir st Cir cu it is likely t o per m it t h eir in t er locu t or y a ppea l. Alt h ou gh
cir cu it cou r t s h a ve “u n fet t er ed discr et ion ” t o gr a n t in t er locu t or y r eview of
cla ss cer t ifica t ion or der s, see F ed. R. Civ. P . 23(f) a dvisor y com m it t ee’s n ot e
(1998), “a ppella t e cou r t s oft en do n ot r eview cer t ifica t ion or der s u n t il a ft er
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 4 of 10

5
fin a l ju dgm en t .” In r e P h a r m . In du s. Aver a ge Wh olesa le P r ice Lit ig., 588
F .3d 24, 40 n .18 (1st Cir . 2009). Th e F ir st Cir cu it h a s in dica t ed t h a t it will
or din a r ily gr a n t lea ve for a ppea l on ly wh er e cer t a in cir cu m st a n ces a r e
pr esen t , in clu din g, a s r eleva n t h er e, wh er e t h e “a ppea l will per m it t h e
r esolu t ion of a n u n set t led lega l issu e t h a t is im por t a n t t o t h e pa r t icu la r
lit iga t ion a s well a s im por t a n t in it self a n d likely t o esca pe effect ive r eview if
it is left h a n gin g u n t il t h e en d of t h e ca se.”2 Wa st e Mgm t . H oldin gs, In c. v.
Mowbr a y, 208 F .3d 288, 294 (1st Cir . 2000). Th e F ir st Cir cu it h a s ca u t ion ed,
h owever , t h a t t h is ca t egor y is r ela t ively “r est r ict ed” a n d t h a t “in t er locu t or y
a ppea ls sh ou ld be t h e except ion , n ot t h e r u le” given t h a t “m a n y (if n ot m ost )
cla ss cer t ifica t ion decision s t u r n on ‘fa m ilia r a n d a lm ost r ou t in e issu es.’” Id.
(qu ot in g F ed. R. Civ. P . 23(f) a dvisor y com m it t ee’s n ot e (1998)).
Th e issu es r a ised by t h e defen da n t s’ a ppea l, wh ile n o dou bt
su bst a n t ia l, do n ot t u r n on u n set t led qu est ion s of la w. Th e cla ss cer t ifica t ion
or der did n ot pu r por t t o r esolve u n a ddr essed qu est ion s of la w, bu t r a t h er
a pplied est a blish ed ca se la w t o t h e fa ct s a t h a n d. Th a t t h e defen da n t s
2 	Th e F ir st Cir cu it h a s a lso st a t ed t h a t it will gen er a lly gr a n t lea ve t o
a ppea l wh er e “a den ia l of cla ss st a t u s effect ively en ds t h e ca se” or “t h e gr a n t
of cla ss st a t u s r a ises t h e st a kes of t h e lit iga t ion so su bst a n t ia lly t h a t t h e
defen da n t likely will feel ir r esist ible pr essu r e t o set t le.” Mowbr a y, 208 F .3d
a t 293. Th e in st a n t ca se does n ot a ppea r t o fa ll wit h in eit h er ca t egor y, a n d
t h e defen da n t s do n ot a r gu e ot h er wise.
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 5 of 10

6
con t en d t h is a pplica t ion wa s er r on eou s does n ot m ea n t h a t t h e or der
im plica t ed u n set t led qu est ion s of la w.
Mor eover , t h e defen da n t s m a ke n o a r gu m en t t h a t t h e issu es r a ised in
t h eir a ppea l cou ld n ot be effect ively r eviewed a t t h e con clu sion of t h e ca se.
Absen t su ch a sh owin g, t h e F ir st Cir cu it h a s in dica t ed t h a t it is disin clin ed t o
per m it a n in t er locu t or y a ppea l t o pr oceed. Id. a t 293-294 (“even wh en a n
a pplica t ion t ou t s a su pposedly fu n da m en t a l issu e of la w, a sh owin g t h a t a n
en d-of-ca se a ppea l pr om ises t o be a n a dequ a t e r em edy will weigh h ea vily
a ga in st gr a n t in g a Ru le 23(f) a pplica t ion .”). Accor din gly, wh ile t h er e is a fa ir
possibilit y t h a t t h e defen da n t s’ Ru le 23(f) pet it ion will be gr a n t ed, t h e
defen da n t s h a ve n ot m a de t h e r equ isit e “st r on g sh owin g” t h a t su ch a n
ou t com e is likely. N ken , 556 U.S. a t 434 (n ot in g t h a t “m or e t h a n a m er e
possibilit y of r elief is r equ ir ed” t o wa r r a n t a st a y) (clea n ed u p).
Nor h a ve t h e defen da n t s dem on st r a t ed t h a t t h ey wou ld su ffer
ir r epa r a ble h a r m a bsen t a st a y. Th e defen da n t s pr im a r ily a r gu e t h a t , if
pr oceedin gs wer e t o con t in u e, t h ey wou ld in cu r su bst a n t ia l, a n d pot en t ia lly
u n n ecessa r y, lit iga t ion cost s. “Cou r t s a ppea r split over wh et h er lit iga t ion
cost s a lon e est a blish ir r epa r a ble h a r m [.]” H u ffm a n v. P r u den t ia l In s. Co. of
Am ., No. 2:10-cv-05135, 2018 WL 1281901, a t *2 & n .4 (E .D. P a . Ma r . 12,
2018) (collect in g ca ses). Alt h ou gh “[a ] m a jor it y of cou r t s h olds t h a t t h e
pr ospect of pot en t ia lly a voida ble lit iga t ion expen se m a y su ppor t a st a y
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 6 of 10

7
pen din g a ppea l,” dist r ict cou r t s in t h is cir cu it h a ve r ou t in ely con clu ded t h a t
lit iga t ion expen ses a lon e do n ot con st it u t e ir r epa r a ble h a r m . See 2
McLa u gh lin on Cla ss Act ion s § 7:1 (20t h ed. 2023); see, e.g., Does v. Mills, No.
1:21-cv-00242-J DL, 2022 WL 43893, a t *3 (D. Me. J a n . 4, 2022); P icon e, 2020
WL 3051871, a t *2; F oss v. Spen cer Br ewer y, No. 4:19-40098-TSH , 2019 WL
6223205, a t *1 (D. Ma ss. Nov. 20, 2019). Th is con clu sion is con sist en t wit h
Su pr em e Cou r t pr eceden t on pr elim in a r y in ju n ct ion s, wh ich r ecogn izes t h a t
“[m ]er e lit iga t ion expen se, even su bst a n t ia l a n d u n r ecou pa ble cost , does n ot
con st it u t e ir r epa r a ble in ju r y” ju st ifyin g a n in ju n ct ion . Ren egot ia t ion Bd. v.
Ba n n er cr a ft Clot h in g Co., In c., 415 U.S. 1, 24 (1974); a ccor d Tejidos de
Coa m o, In c. v. In t ’l La dies’ Ga r m en t Wor ker s’ U n ion , 22 F .3d 8, 14 (1st Cir .
1994) (“cou r t s h a ve or din a r ily n ot deem ed lit iga t ion expen se t o be su bst a n t ia l
a n d ir r epa r a ble in ju r y wa r r a n t in g a n in ju n ct ion [.]”). Wh ile n ot dir ect ly on
poin t , t h e Su pr em e Cou r t ’s gu ida n ce on pr elim in a r y in ju n ct ion s is in st r u ct ive
given t h a t bot h in qu ir ies t u r n on com pa r a ble t est s a n d a r e a n im a t ed by
“sim ila r con cer n s.” Nken , 556 U.S. a t 434 (“Th er e is su bst a n t ia l over la p
bet ween [t h e st a y fa ct or s] a n d t h e fa ct or s gover n in g pr elim in a r y
in ju n ct ion s[.]”). Accor din gly, t h a t t h e defen da n t s m a y be for ced t o in cu r
lit iga t ion expen ses does n ot con st it u t e t h e sor t of ir r epa r a ble in ju r y ju st ifyin g
a st a y, even if t h ose expen ses a r e u lt im a t ely r en der ed u n n ecessa r y. See F ed.
Tr a de Com m ’n v. St a n da r d Oil Co. of Ca l., 449 U.S. 232, 244 (1980) ( qu ot in g
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 7 of 10

8
P et r oleu m E xpl., In c. v. P u b. Ser v. Com m ’n , 304 U.S. 209, 222 (1938)) (“t h e
expen se a n d a n n oya n ce of lit iga t ion is pa r t of t h e socia l bu r den of livin g
u n der gover n m en t .”).
Th e defen da n t s n ext a r gu e t h a t t h ey wou ld be ir r epa r a bly h a r m ed by
bein g for ced t o pr epa r e for t r ia l wit h ou t “cla r ifica t ion fr om t h e F ir st Cir cu it ”
a s t o “wh a t P la in t iffs m u st pr ove on t h e m er it s[.]” Doc. 166-1 a t 5. H owever ,
m u ch like lit iga t ion expen ses, lin ger in g u n cer t a in t ies a s t o h ow t h e m er it s
will u lt im a t ely be pr oved a r e n ot u n iqu e t o t h is ca se, bu t r a t h er a r e likely t o
a r ise in a n y com plex cla ss a ct ion . Non et h eless, “cou r t s do n ot gr a n t st a ys a s a
m a t t er of cou r se in t h e Ru le 23(f) con t ext .” H u ffm a n , 2018 WL 1281901, a t *2
n .4. Th e defen da n t s’ con cer n s will be r esolved, n ot by a st a y, bu t r a t h er by
pr oceedin g t o su m m a r y ju dgm en t , wh er e t h e pla in t iffs’ t h eor y of t h e ca se ca n
be a dequ a t ely pr obed a n d ch a llen ged.3 Th e defen da n t s h a ve t h er efor e fa iled
t o dem on st r a t e t h a t t h ey will su ffer ir r epa r a ble h a r m sh ou ld t h e ca se
pr oceed.
Th e defen da n t s’ fa ilu r e t o est a blish a likelih ood of su ccess on t h e m er it s
or a t h r ea t of ir r epa r a ble h a r m is, st a n din g a lon e, “fa t a l t o [t h eir ] m ot ion .”
3 	In deed, even if I wer e t o gr a n t a st a y, it wou ld n ot n ecessa r ily pr even t
t h e h a r m t h e defen da n t s fea r . Th e F ir st Cir cu it cou ld r esolve t h e defen da n t s’
a ppea l wit h ou t discu ssin g wh a t t h e pla in t iffs m u st pr ove t o su cceed on t h e
m er it s of t h eir a ct ion (a n issu e t h a t wa s n eit h er ext en sively a n a lyzed in m y
or der n or br iefed by t h e pa r t ies), in wh ich ca se t h e defen da n t s wou ld be in
t h e sa m e posit ion a s t h ey a r e n ow.
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 8 of 10

9
F oss, 2019 WL 6223205, a t *1. Non et h eless, it is wor t h n ot in g t h a t bot h t h e
pu blic in t er est a n d t h e r isk of h a r m t o ot h er in t er est ed pa r t ies weigh in fa vor
of den yin g a st a y.
Th e cla ss pla in t iffs a r e in dividu a ls wit h sign ifica n t disa bilit ies wh o r ely
on CF I Wa iver ser vices t o m a in t a in t h eir h ea lt h a n d in depen den ce in t h e
com m u n it y. Wh ile t h e defen da n t s ch a llen ge t h e ext en t of t h e h a r m cla im ed
by t h e pla in t iffs a n d den y a n y lega l r espon sibilit y, t h ey do n ot dispu t e t h a t
m a n y CF I Wa iver pa r t icipa n t s exper ien ce ga ps in ser vice deliver y a n d t h a t
su ch ser vice ga ps ca n , in cer t a in cir cu m st a n ces, lea d t o sever e con sequ en ces,
in clu din g in st it u t ion a liza t ion or dea t h . See Doc. 96-1 a t 8; Doc. 134-10 a t 9;
Doc. 151-2 a t 44. If t h e pla in t iffs a r e cor r ect t h a t t h e defen da n t s’ pr a ct ices
a r e dr ivin g ser vice ga ps, t h en st a yin g t h e pr oceedin gs wou ld t h r ea t en
su bst a n t ia l, a n d per h a ps a voida ble, h a r m t o t h e cla ss pla in t iffs a s well a s t h e
gr ea t er com m u n it y. See DL v. Dist r ict of Colu m bia , 6 F . Su pp.3d 133, 136
(D.D.C. 2014) (“t h e h a r m t h a t cou ld befa ll t h e pla in t iffs a n d t h e pu blic a s a
r esu lt of n on com plia n ce wit h t h e IDE A fa r ou t weigh s t h e com pa r a t ively
m ea ger cost t o t h e Dist r ict of pr odu cin g discover y[.]”). Mor eover , given t h e
n a t u r e of t h e cla im s a n d t h e ch a r a ct er ist ics of t h e cla ss m em ber s, st a yin g t h e
pr oceedin gs r isks “depr iv[in g] som e cla ss m em ber s of t h e oppor t u n it y t o
ben efit fr om a n y r elief t h a t is obt a in ed.” See Th or pe v. Dist r ict of Colu m bia ,
306 F .R.D. 6, 11 (D.D.C. 2014); cf. E a r l v. Boein g Co., 21 F .4t h 895, 900 (5t h
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 9 of 10

10
Cir . 2021) (n ot in g t h a t , wh er e on ly m on et a r y r elief wa s sou gh t , cla ss
pla in t iffs wou ld n ot be su bst a n t ia lly h a r m ed by a dela yed vict or y).
Con sider in g t h e m a gn it u de of t h e con cer n s r a ised by t h is ca se, bot h t h e cla ss
m em ber s a n d t h e pu blic h a ve a su bst a n t ia l in t er est in r esolvin g t h e cla im s a s
pr om pt ly a s possible.
I V. 	C O N C L U S I O N
F or t h e for egoin g r ea son s, I con clu de t h a t t h e defen da n t s h a ve n ot
dem on st r a t ed t h a t a st a y is pr esen t ly wa r r a n t ed. Non et h eless, beca u se t h e
“pr opr iet y of [a st a y] is depen den t u pon t h e cir cu m st a n ces of t h e pa r t icu la r
ca se,” t h e defen da n t s m a y r en ew t h eir m ot ion a t a la t er t im e sh ou ld
cir cu m st a n ces ch a n ge. See Nken , 556 U .S. a t 433 (qu ot in g Vir gin ia n Ry. Co.
v. Un it ed St a t es, 272 U.S. 658, 672-673 (1926)). A ccor din gly, t h e defen da n t s’
m ot ion t o st a y pr oceedin gs (Doc. 166) is den ied wit h ou t pr eju dice.
SO ORDE RE D.
/s/ P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o
P a u l J . Ba r ba dor o
Un it ed St a t es Dist r ict J u dge
J a n u a r y 22, 2024
cc: 	Cou n sel of Recor d
Case 1:21-cv-00025-PB Document 170 Filed 01/22/24 Page 10 of 10