Bonta
EMILY Q. v. Bonta
208 F. Supp. 2d 1078·2001 WL 1902812·2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22305
United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaMarch 30, 2001CV 98-4181 AHM (AIJx)California1,441 words
Opinion
Opinion
Matz, J.
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PERMANENT INJUNCTION
I. OVERVIEW
The following recitals incorporate “facts,” including dates, people’s ages and events alleged in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”), to which the parties stipulated on March 30, 2000. With the parties’ consent, the Court has not modified those recitals to account for the passage of time since then.
A. Parties
B. This Action
C. Procedural History
D. Current Status of This Action (Plaintiffs Motion for Permanent Injunction)
E. Applicable Law — The Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396 et seq.
F. Burden of Proof
II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
A. Medicaid and Medi-Cal Programs
1. Medicaid
2. Medi-Cal
3. Early and Periodic Screening Diagnosis and Treatment (“EPSDT”)
4. Therapeutic Behavioral Services (“TBS”)
B. Current Notices of Existing Medicaid or Medi-Cal Services
1. DHS’s Notices
2. MHPs’ Notices
3. DMH’s Notice of Availability of TBS.
III. STANDARD OF REVIEW UNDER THE MEDICAID ACT
A. “Due to concerns of comity and federalism, the scope of federal injunctive relief against an agency of state government must always be narrowly tailored to enforce federal constitutional and statutory law only.” Clark v.…