Yee-Litt v. Richardson
353 F. Supp. 996
N.D. Cal.
1973
Check Treatment

*1 Composition Typical

Total hardness Iron Total Sodium, Na + Chloride, Chromate, Carbonate, Sulfate, Na2 CrO^ Oxygen, Total Sulfide, Calcium, COD NHg * Magneslum, Hydroxide, OH COD methacrylate monomers.” * (Total, Alkalinity Dissolved Solids SO4 S Ca -1 —h Cl consists =COg = (calculated) Fe++) Mg = (as CaCOg) ++ (as CaCOg) various alcohols 25,000 27,800 5,300 2,603.6 9.354.1 6.466.0 269.5 17.5 3.0 7.0 mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L mg/L above,

Upon dates each of the outlined provide samples parties will

measuring ques- each wastes Protection

tion to the Environmental Region VI,

Agency, Labora- Houston

tory, their evaluation of and receive samples.

quantities report

parties court if will then to the

necessary. jurisdiction court retain guidelines until set out

this cause complied have been with.

Joyce al., YEE-LITT et Plaintiffs, al.,

Elliot L. RICHARDSON et

Defendants.

No. C-71-2286 OJC.

United States District

N. D. California.

Jan. *2 III, Christopher Armando Menocal M. Neighborhood May,

N. San Francisco Legal Foundation, San Fran- Assistance Cal., cisco, plaintiffs. Browning, Jr., Atty.,

James L. U. S. Locke, Atty., Richard F. Asst. U. S. Younger, Atty. Evelle Cal., David Gen. Bowie, Deputy Gen., Atty. J. Fran- San cisco, Cal., for defendants. HAMLIN, Judge, Before Circuit and Judges. CARTER, EAST and District MEMORANDUM AND ORDER CARTER, Judge. OLIVER J. District Plaintiffs filed this action to declare enjoin unconstitutional and to federal permit and state summary termination of welfare benefits prior hearing. to a The Federal Defend- Richardson, ant is Elliot L. the then Sec- retary Department of the United States Health, Welfare, and Education sponsible for the administration categorical Security Social Act’s assist- programs. ance Defendant Carleson, Robert Director of Cali- B. Depai'tment fornia State of Social Wel- fare, agency which administers Cali- categorical programs. fornia’s assistance for this on 28 Jurisdiction Court is based is also U.S.C. action §§ brought 1343(3) under §§ U.S.C. (4), 28 U.S.C. U.S. §§ 1983, and Fifth and Fourteenth C. to the United States Con- Amendments stitution. brought ac

Plaintiffs have other of themselves and all tion on behalf categor under California programs Se ical assistance Social persons curity all assist Act, programs these has been ance under pending appeal reduced or terminated sustain thereby depriving that burden September 3,1971, notwithstanding right since them of their to a And finally, plaintiffs argue their for a fair the fact- vague The Court finds that this class is so nu- distinction is so and lack- joinder arbitrary merous that of all members is standards that impracticable. All members the class commonplace the Chief Referee are *3 governed by reg- thereby depriving recipients hearing the same California aof rights. ulations and process statutes and therefore are in violation of their due by treated in a similar manner State reply, In the State contends that there is right hearing on prior The further finds no Court constitutional a defendants. to hearings held, alleged pleading heretofore basis all cases and that the representative parties alleged that arbitrary herein will burden and fairly adequately protect recently by imple- interest have been remedied Accordingly, of the class. the Court con- mented state properly cludes that action is main- this Without doubt the landmark decision purpose tainable a class action for the as hearings in the area of welfare is Gold- securing injunctive F.R.Civ.P. relief. berg Kelly, supra. opinion v. The set 23(b)(2). 23(a) and process out require- the minimum due regulations being recipients prior The California chal- ments for welfare to lenged, 22- Title Cal.Admin.Code termination of The benefits. Court said § pursuant hearing process requires prior 022.3 issued to California’s that due Welfare and Code to Institutions Section termination when the makes permit or termina- reduction to be heard. prior point to a hear- tion welfare benefits action raises a not de- ing. Goldberg. recipi- Chief Referee1 cided in Whenever the The welfare only Goldberg recipient’s appeal challenged that the termines State's ents raises and no issue determination of factual Accord- issues issues. judgment ingly, Supreme in the individual’s no com- Court made rights pending paid the fair ment on the not of welfare is regu- appeals only policy the federal issues. also Plaintiffs Following (a)5, Goldberg, lation, which 210.10 decision 45 C.F.R. imple- implement fact- to involved here were the State lows policy among distinguishing inferentially assumption on the mented approved is timely appeals. contention that the had made, timely appeal only poli- pre-hearing is terminations where that whenever process cy re- of due standards issues raised. minimum hearing prior to reduction quire a The defendants have cited several hearing The of benefits. termination opinions part which state in that eviden process minimum due must meet hearings tiary are needed where Goldberg explained Kel- v. as standard ly, g. factual contentions are e. raised. See 1153,25 L.Ed.2d 90 S.Ct. 397 U.S. Betit, (D.Vt. F.Supp. Provost 1971); Kirby, Russo v. 453 F.2d 548 (2 Dept. Cir., 1971); Connecticut State forth three have set al., et of Public Welfare v. H. E. W. theories as for the basis relief seek. Cir., 1971). decisions, (2 F.2d 209 theory that due first although point not on with the facts hearing opportunity quires all for a support position action, defendants’ prior to termination or reduction cases hearing prior required by due that no Plaintiffs next con- welfare benefits. dispute. are in where no facts requiring tend that a welfare convening plead appeal places judge facts on an unfair Prior to this three restraining Court, people temporary burden on a order class of unable to final determination to whether 1. The Chief Reference to the State official who makes the as paid appeal. aid will be viewing including regular briefs, all the (T.R.O.) Chief United made was Carter, Judge reports statistical on the effect of J. District Oliver States regulations, pre-hearing termi- new prevented concludes that recipi- regulations deny of welfare nations or reductions timely appeals. process according At due had filed ents who hearing supra. Kelly, the first before The Court finds modify erroneously deny the T.R.O. moved work State , by implementing argued pre-termination hearings new welfare re- now cipients ones who have issues issue — raised factual —the alleged recipients from the given below, relieve would on For the reasons con- also pleading Defendants burden. that new concludes regulations would new probably remedy tended errors give more information Referee Chief because of the inherent difficulties *4 questions whether to decide using fact-policy with which distinction. by the judgment were of or modifying Before the T.R.O. the Court Supreme the recipient’s Since regula- proposed was satisfied the courts lower instructed had Court possible. tions would be as effective as problems if agencies their to solve low part by In satisfied the was agreed im- to allow possible, this Court there State’s assurances that no lack was new plementation the of using fact-policy of in standards the 208, Wright, 405 U.S. Richardson See system, merely but that there was a lack (1972). 788, L.Ed.2d 151 92 S.Ct. of information for maker. the decision le- of the close because The acted Court strongly The State also claimed that concerning gal presented question regulations would relieve the burden distinction; fact-policy validity of recipient plead on a facts in his re- might regulations lift what because quest for a Because this Court pleading on the appeared burden be a regulations was satisfied that regu- because welfare described, work as modi- the T.R.O. was might prevent deci- erroneous lations fied. Several after the T.R.O. months demonstrating thereby viabil- sions was modified the effectiveness of these ity fact-policy distinction. regulations challenged. the basis was On regu- underlying concept the new presented The of the information at the hear- by the contact September 28,1972, lations is that additional the Court con- recipient produc- county with the worker cludes that did not work planned. with which es more information as more informed Referee makes Chief In at two least areas been have now cision. erroneously hearings prior to ter- denied 1972, pursuant 16, March effect since type mination or first reduction. At the latest order. to this Court’s can erroneous denial best be classified 1972, argument 28, hearing, as mistakes. Court that no realizes regula- concerning how the was heard regulatory foolproof; be can if effect worked and the tions had however, any try court is constrained to At upon plaintiffs’ claims. three to minimize mistakes in welfare area. hearing, plaintiffs renewed close of As the said injunc- preliminary for their motion page U.S., page at 264 of 397 at 1018 of his renewed tion, the State qualified S.Ct., recipients, “For wel- summary judgment, and the for motion provides the fare means essen- obtain motion to renewed his Federal food, housing, tial clothing, medical dismiss. . care. . . the crucial factor Thus context— to the State . . . —is that ter- per un are se of aid is that mination resolution of a alternatively controversy deprive eligibility may over constitutional eligible very After re- are unconstitutional in effect. means concerning eligibility (Foot- welfare he waits.” while to live Although cipients omitted) on the basis citation note and Again quoting distinction. berg Kelly, from Gold- of these not know the number does page mistakes, U.S. at there were several admitted page examples.2 at the court was S.Ct. where presented by as quoting lower court decision way from the the Court can be sure simply too pay that stakes are is to “‘[t]he recur similar mistakes high timely ap- recipient, for the welfare and the pending in where all cases possibility honest error irritable peals filed. misjudgment great, termina- too to allow pre-hear- area of erroneous The second giving tion of aid without ap- ing terminations arises from what desires, fully chance, if he be so pears misuse these to be the State’s against him formed of the so that case regulations. During period these may produce he evi- contest basis its effect, have been new ” dence rebuttal.’ recipi- of California welfare thousands evidence to the basis of the On the result had their aid reduced as ents date, that the fact- newly this Court concludes welfare code section effective Hall, viable in the issue). distinction is not (not Villa v. here See making context the critical Cal.Rptr. P.2d Cal.3d will be Although determination of whether aid many of these re- 887 cipients *5 paid pending timely appeal a United notice filed of Appeals for reductions, States the Seventh still re- the from recently con a prior Circuit reached similar or from benefits duced terminated Rights clusion, Children’s any hearing. examples pre- and Mother’s to In the Organization al., 467 et al. v. Sterrett et Court, appears it that to this sented (7 1972). ap- Cir., F.2d Also see Wood many recipients of these what raised 239, Houston, Mich.App. son v. peared yet did to be factual still issues (1970). pending N.W.2d not receive aid a [See Supplemental Memorandum Plaintiffs’ September B]. filed Exhibit Conclusion explains apparent this incon- The State the Court fash When regulations by sistency with the new process ioned the minimum due stand only saying recipients raised that these terminating recipients, for ards welfare argues policy that be- issues. State doing in it was the context of a fac so the sufficient cause Chief Referee had in tual The defendants have factual in each he was information Goldberg terpreted separate to allow or sure that the decision to terminate recipients appeals treatment for reduce Therefore since the was correct. judgment. not do raise issues of fact or fac- to terminate reduce was decision However, implementation policy of this tually correct, the could distinguishing policy from factual raising concerning

be appeals improper has in de resulted the implementation the the new code sec- significant pending nial of num aid tion. recipients. im bers welfare T.R.O., properly terminated modified the When the Court yet timely appeals regulations factual on their it did the issues not foresee that way. did not receive aid could violation be used Goldberg Kelly. say purposefully The Court concludes to that State has using that the even when its best or misled misused regula seemingly does find effort with innovative Court. sys tions, fact-policy episode vividly operate cannot demonstrates that many making danger tem erroneous decisions. without critical Memorandum, 21, 1972, Supplemental filed B. Exhibit (concurring Judge HAMLIN, Circuit that further concludes The Court dissenting): State, rath-- not lie with but fault does unmanageable er the unclear with por- respectfully I from dissent that regula- distinction which grants majority tion order which Accordingly, created. tions have against injunctive relief broad concludes that state objects majority Carleson. deny minimum due issue challenged regulations because of errors significant wel- number of California by welfare administrators committed appeal timely from fare who hearing determining whether fair notices or reduction from of termination quest policy. raises issues benefits. might that While it be guarantee question Having reg do not that no mis- found that state designed made, will takes be denial of due ulations work a reasonably do, provide pend- to, and plaintiffs, on Court concludes that a ing hearings fair where factual matters preliminary injunction should issue. dispute. are in This seems to be all that Further use of these would required by Goldberg Kelly, U.S. immediately irreparably harm each eligible pend S.Ct. 25 L.Ed.2d denied aid who is timely appeal. The de his against any further de cision militates Defendant’s controvert affidavits lay enjoining regulation, as there implication strong possibility is a produces number of excessive prevail trial at a on the merits. equities and indicate that errors have kept very percentage.1 been small Accordingly, it is ordered that defend- any very Certainly errors are inherent preliminarily ant Robert Carleson is B. large undertaking enjoined, scale administrative pending the further order of expect and I withholding, would from or contin- every uing use even withhold, effort reduce ben- *6 assistance existing. percentage pursuant the small now efits to Title Cal.Admin. persons Code 22-022.3 from who have § stated, Judge Learned has As Hand may made or make a “ . . . due of law does a fair mean infallible of law.” Schecht- It is further ordered that Foster, (2nd man 172 F.2d summary judgment, fendant’s motion for 1949). Cir. is, hereby be, and the same denied. is devoid of evidence record It further is ordered good lack of faith the administra- Federal defendant’s motion to dismiss tion be, is, hereby granted and the same prejudice,3 grant without above, said is As I indicated would not hereby sought-for injunction. dismissed. bearing 3. The Federal defendant’s motion to dismiss 1. From the thousands of fair re monthly quests (4,090 requests is made on the basis that lacks filed personal jurisdiction alone) plaintiffs October, 1972, and venue. filed in argument Court concludes that have submitted a list of cases where given allegedly correct for the reasons Macias been er have Finch, F.Supp. (N.D.Cal.1971). roneously denied Supplemental Memorandum, because the federal statute lowing regulation September 21, the state here in issue But five such 1972. challenged administering has not been under 28 U.S.C. cases involve errors Sup-, the Court concludes that it would be Defendant’s distinction. inappropriate Memorandum, plemental to examine into or make an respecting order There- statute. fore, purpose currently no served retaining of the Federal action.