One for all and all for one, this one is a victory!

A big round of applause for Rocio Smith and everyone in California! Below is proof that the olmstead is alive and well! In the holocaust, many people were killed in cruel mental hospitals and has been going on in the US ever since. This is yet one more step that people with DD do not need institutions. Shhhhh.......slowly but surly we are winning the war.


SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
CAPITOL PEOPLE FIRST et al., on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,
Plaintiffs
v.
DEPARTMENT OF DEVELOPMENTAL SERVICE, et al.,
Defendants
Case No. 2002-038715
CLASS ACTION
NOTICE OF PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT
AND HEARING DATE FOR FINAL COURT APPROVAL
The Superior Court of California for the County of Alameda has authorized this notice. It is not
a solicitation for a lawyer.
TO: ALL PERSONS WITH A DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITY WHO RESIDE IN
CALIFORNIA AND NOW LIVE IN, OR HAVE LIVED DURING THE LAST
YEAR IN, A GOVERNMENT OR PRIVATELY OPERATED FACILITY WITH
16 OR MORE OTHER PEOPLE
PLEASE READ THIS NOTICE CAREFULLY, IT MAY AFFECT YOUR LEGAL
RIGHTS
IF YOU WISH TO OBJECT TO THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT OR
APPEAR AT THE APRIL 24, 2009 COURT HEARING REGARDING FINAL
APPROVAL OF THE SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT, YOU MUST FOLLOW
THE DIRECTIONS IN THIS NOTICE
2
Purpose of This Notice
This Notice sets forth the basic terms of the proposed Settlement Agreement in the case
entitled Capitol People First v. Department of Developmental Disabilities and advises
class members of their procedural rights relating to the settlement. The certified class in
the case is defined as follows:
All California residents with a developmental disability, as defined in
Welfare and Institutions Code section 4512(b), who are (or become)
institutionalized, and those who are at risk of being institutionalized, in
congregate residential facilities having a capacity of 16 or more
individuals.
Under this definition, “institutions” are public and private, licensed or
certified facilities, including but not limited to state developmental centers
(DCs) including the state-owned-and-operated Sierra Vista and Canyon
Springs facilities, state psychiatric hospitals; intermediate care facilities –
developmentally disabled (ICF-DDs); and those skilled nursing facilities
(SNFs), residential community care facilities (CCFs), or children’s shelters
with a capacity of 16 or more. This definition refers to facilities on the
same grounds or parcel, irrespective of whether the provider has one or
more discrete licenses.
By statute, Welfare and Institutions Code section 4418.7, a person is “at
risk” of institutionalization in a DC when “the regional center determines,
or is informed by the consumer’s parents, legal guardian, conservator, or
authorized representative that the community placement of [the] consumer
is at risk of failing and that admittance to a state developmental center is a
likelihood.” For purposes of the class definition, the same criteria apply to
determine those at risk of institutionalization in institutions other than
DCs. In addition, pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code section 4508,
individuals who are released from DCs may be on provisional placement
for one year and have an “automatic right of return.” Under the class
definition, therefore, persons at risk of institutionalization also include
those who are within one year of release or discharge from a DC or other
institution.
Description of the Case
Three organizations concerned with the rights of persons with developmental disabilities
(Capitol People First, ARC of California, and California Alliance for Inclusive
Communities) and 15 individuals with developmental disabilities (the Plaintiffs) have
brought a lawsuit against the California Department of Developmental Disabilities
(DDS), other State agencies, and the 21 Regional Centers located throughout California
which arrange for services and supports to persons with developmental disabilities (the
3
Defendants). Two organizations concerned with the rights of persons with developmental
disabilities (California Association of State Hospital Parent Councils for the Retarded,
and California Association for the Retarded) intervened in the case.
In the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs contend that Californians with developmental disabilities,
who live in government or privately operated facility with 16 or more persons, should
have more information and choice about options for living in smaller homes in the
community. The lawsuit asks the Court to issue an order requiring the Defendants to take
steps designed to advance these objectives. The lawsuit does NOT seek an award of
money damages for anyone.
The Defendants deny the allegations in the lawsuit.
Summary of the Proposed Settlement Agreement
In order to resolve the lawsuit, the Plaintiffs and the Defendants have successfully
negotiated a proposed Settlement Agreement. On January 30, 2009, Alameda County
Superior Court Judge Robert Freedman granted preliminary approval of the Settlement
Agreement and approved this Notice.
What follows is a brief summary of the main terms of the proposed Settlement
Agreement. If you want more information, please see the section of this Notice entitled
“Obtaining More Information” which is set forth below.
• Subject to Legislative approval, DDS will provide additional funds to each Regional
Center to assist the Regional Center in arranging for a case worker to attend Individual
Program Plan (IPP) meetings of persons residing in Developmental Centers (DC s).
• Regional Centers will provide information to persons living in certain large private
facilities about possible living arrangements in smaller, community-based settings.
• DDS will provide training to DC staff about community living options.
• DDS will work with Disability Rights California and the State Council on Developmental
Disabilities to provide information and training to class members about community living
options.
• Regional Centers and DDS will continue to use the Community Placement Plan process
to help class members move from the DC s to community settings.
• Regional Centers and DDS will develop new community programs and housing options.
• Subject to Legislative approval, DDS will continue to provide funds to Regional Centers
to use to help large, private facilities, which serve persons with developmental
disabilities, to downsize to smaller community homes.
4
• The Settlement will remain in effect for three years. During this period, Disability Rights
California, the attorneys for the Plaintiffs, will receive reports which will allow it to
monitor the Defendants’ performance under the Settlement Agreement.
• The Settlement Agreement does NOT provide for a monetary award to any plaintiff or
class member.
• The Settlement Agreement does NOT provide for the payment of attorneys’ fees or costs
to the Plaintiffs or their attorneys.
• Nothing in the Settlement Agreement requires anyone to move from his or her current
residence.
The Fairness Hearing
The next step in the case will be a hearing at which Judge Freedman will decide whether
the proposed Settlement Agreement is fair and reasonable (the Fairness Hearing). The
Fairness Hearing will be held on April 24 2009 at 2:00 p.m. The location of the hearing
is Department 20, Alameda County Superior Court, 1221 Oak Street, 4th Floor, Oakland,
California 94612.
If, at the conclusion of the Fairness Hearing, Judge Freedman gives final approval to the
Settlement Agreement, you, as a member of the class, will be bound by the Settlement
Agreement. As a practical matter, this means that for the three years the Settlement
Agreement is in effect, you cannot bring a lawsuit that makes claims which are the same
or similar to the claims made by the Plaintiffs in this lawsuit. Please note that the
proposed Settlement Agreement does NOT affect or alter your right to have disputes
which are specific to you resolved through an appropriate administrative hearing or
court action.
Comment and Objection Procedure
As a member of the class, you now have the following options:
• If you agree with the proposed Settlement Agreement, you do not need to do
anything.
• If you oppose any of the provisions in the proposed Settlement Agreement:
• You may submit a letter explaining your objection to the proposed Settlement
Agreement. Your letter will be considered by Judge Freedman at the Fairness
Hearing.
5
OR
• You may appear at the Fairness Hearing and explain your objections to Judge
Freedman.
To do either of the above, you must send a letter containing the following information to
BOTH of the addresses set forth below:
• The name and number of the case, i.e., Capitol People First v. Department of
Developmental Disabilities, No. 2002-038715.
• Your full name and address.
• An explanation of specific reasons for your objection to the proposed Settlement
Agreement, including the identification of the particular provision(s) in the
Settlement Agreement to which you object.
• A statement that you intend to appear at the Fairness Hearing, if that is your plan.
Your letter must be mailed to:
Clerk of the Court
Alameda County Superior Court
Renee C. Davison Alameda County Courthouse
1225 Fallon Street
Oakland, CA 94612
AND
Barbara Dickey, Esq.
Disability Rights California
1330 Broadway, Suite 500
Oakland, CA 94612
TO BE VALID, YOUR LETTER MUST BE POSTMARKED NOT LATER THAN
April 17, 2009.
DO NOT TELEPHONE THE COURT.
6
Obtaining More Information
If you want more information, you may:
• Read the complete Settlement Agreement at the Clerk’s Office at the above
address.
• Find the complete Settlement Agreement on the internet at:
Alameda County Superior Court
• California Department of Developmental Services
• Disability Rights California
• Regional Centers in California
• Telephone Disability Rights California (Plaintiffs’ attorney) at (510) 267-
1200 to request that a copy of the proposed Settlement Agreement be
mailed to you.
• Call or email Barbara Dickey, the lead attorney representing the class, at:
• Telephone – (800) 776-5746, TTY (800) 649-0154
• Email – CPFinquiries@disabilityrightsca.org.