Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 A. Overview of the ADHC Program 3 B. Elimination of ADHC Under Assembly Bill 97 5 III. ARGUMENT 6 A. Olmstead and the Integration Mandate 6 B. Plaintiffs Satisfy the Requirements for a Preliminary Injunction 7 1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail On ADA Claim 7 a. Plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert a violation of the ADA’s Integration Mandate 8 b. Policies that individuals with disabilities at serious risk of institutionalization violate the ADA 9 c. Defendants’ elimination of ADHC services will place Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at serious risk of institutionalization 13 d. The request that the implementation of AB 97 occur in a manner that minimizes disruptions in care that put Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at risk of entry into costly institutional settings is reasonable and does not fundamentally alter Defendants’ overall program of services 19 2. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Preliminary Injunction 21 3. The Balance of Hardships Weighs Heavily in Plaintiffs’ Favor and Granting Plaintiffs’ Request for a Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23
Table of Contents I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. STATEMENT OF FACTS 3 A. Overview of the ADHC Program 3 B. Elimination of ADHC Under Assembly Bill 97 5 III. ARGUMENT 6 A. Olmstead and the Integration Mandate 6 B. Plaintiffs Satisfy the Requirements for a Preliminary Injunction 7 1. Plaintiffs Are Likely to Prevail On ADA Claim 7 a. Plaintiffs have Article III standing to assert a violation of the ADA’s Integration Mandate 8 b. Policies that individuals with disabilities at serious risk of institutionalization violate the ADA 9 c. Defendants’ elimination of ADHC services will place Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at serious risk of institutionalization 13 d. The request that the implementation of AB 97 occur in a manner that minimizes disruptions in care that put Plaintiffs and others similarly situated at risk of entry into costly institutional settings is reasonable and does not fundamentally alter Defendants’ overall program of services 19 2. Plaintiffs Will Suffer Irreparable Harm Absent a Preliminary Injunction 21 3. The Balance of Hardships Weighs Heavily in Plaintiffs’ Favor and Granting Plaintiffs’ Request for a Preliminary Injunction is in the Public Interest 22 IV. CONCLUSION 23