Disability Advocates, Inc. v. New York Coalition for Quality Assisted Living, Inc.
675 F.3d 149
| 2d Cir. | 2012Background
- DAI contracted with CQCAPD as New York's PAIMI system to provide protection and advocacy for individuals with mental illness in the state.
- DAI filed suit on July 1, 2003 against NY officials on behalf of constituents in NYC adult homes alleging violation of the ADA integration mandate and §504.
- District Court denied standing challenge and proceeded to trial, concluding DAI had statutory and constitutional standing.
- U.S. interv ened in Oct. 2009 at the remedial stage; District Court adopted DAI's proposed remedy on March 1, 2010 over State objections.
- Appellants challenge DAI’s standing and argue intervention cannot cure jurisdiction; Second Circuit holds DAI lacks associational standing and intervention cannot cure jurisdiction, vacates judgment, and dismisses for lack of jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DAI has associational standing to sue on behalf of its constituents. | DAI constituents have the requisite indicia of membership. | DAI is not a membership organization; constituents lack control and representation. | DAI lacks associational standing under Hunt. |
| Whether PAIMI’s framework can supply standing to a contractor like DAI. | PAIMI protections create indicia of membership for constituents of P&A systems. | DAI is a contractor, not a P&A system; no standing via §10805. | PAIMI protections do not convert DAI into a standing member; no standing. |
| Whether United States intervention after liability can cure jurisdictional defects. | Intervention cures standing defects and allows remedy. | Intervention cannot cure lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at start. | Intervention did not cure jurisdiction; case must be dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333 (U.S. 1977) (three-pronged associational standing test; members must have standing, be germane, and not require individual participation)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (U.S. 1992) (establishes injury-in-fact, causation, redressability requirements for standing)
- United Food & Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Grp., 517 U.S. 544 (U.S. 1996) (distinguishes constitutional vs. prudential standing requirements)
- Pressroom Unions-Printers League Income Sec. Fund v. Cont'l Assurance Co., 700 F.2d 889 (2d Cir. 1983) (intervention cannot cure lack of jurisdiction at start of suit)
- Hackner v. Guar. Trust Co., 117 F.2d 95 (2d Cir. 1941) (courts may permit separate action to resolve intervenor claims if timely; but not to cure jurisdictional defect retroactively)