legal violations and provide class members the opportunity to receive services in the community rather than an institution. 564 U.S. See Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 338, 350 (2011). Classes have been certified without exception in cases where individuals in or at risk of entering nursing facilities assert claims under the ADA’s integration mandate or similar requirements in the Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(e), and these rulings have been left undisturbed by four different courts of appeals. 315 F.R.FD. 472 (W.D. Tex. 2016), See Steward v. Janek, Rule 23(f) Dkt. No. 16-90019 (5th Cir., Aug. 5, 2016); at appeal denied, Dunakin v. Quigley, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1324 (W.D. Wa. 2015), 23(f) review denied, Dunakin v. No. 15-80076 (9th Cir., Aug. 10, 2015); Quigley, Thorpe v. District of Columbia, 303 F.R.D. 120, 138 (D.D.C. 2014), leave to appeal denied by In re District of 792 F.3d 96, 98 (D.C. Cir. 2015); No. Columbia, Rolland v. Cellucci, 1999 WL 34815562, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 1999), Dkt 23(f) review denied, No. 99-8089 (1st Cir., Mar. 2, 1999); No. 98-30208-KPN, 2008 Rolland v. Patrick, WL 4104488 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2008) (refusing to decertify the class based upon alleged differences in the needs and conditions of persons in nursing facilities); 272 F.R.D. 274, 282 (D. Me. 2011). Van Meter v. Harvey, See also, Conn. Office 706 F. Supp. 2d at 266; (certifying a class of individuals of Prot. and Advocacy, with mental illness unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities); Long v. Benson,
legal violations and provide class members the opportunity to receive services in the community rather than an institution. See Wal-Mart Stores v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338, 350 (2011). Classes have been certified without exception in cases where individuals in or at risk of entering nursing facilities assert claims under the ADA’s integration mandate or similar requirements in the Nursing Home Reform Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1396r(e), and these rulings have been left undisturbed by four different courts of appeals. See Steward v. Janek, 315 F.R.FD. 472 (W.D. Tex. 2016), Rule 23(f) appeal denied, Dkt. No. 16-90019 (5th Cir., Aug. 5, 2016); Dunakin at v. Quigley, 99 F. Supp. 3d 1297, 1324 (W.D. Wa. 2015), 23(f) review denied, Dunakin v. Quigley, No. 15-80076 (9th Cir., Aug. 10, 2015); Thorpe v. District of Columbia, 303 F.R.D. 120, 138 (D.D.C. 2014), leave to appeal denied by In re District of Columbia, 792 F.3d 96, 98 (D.C. Cir. 2015); Rolland v. Cellucci, No. 1999 WL 34815562, at *2 (D. Mass. Feb. 2, 1999), 23(f) review denied, Dkt No. 99-8089 (1st Cir., Mar. 2, 1999); Rolland v. Patrick, No. 98-30208-KPN, 2008 WL 4104488 (D. Mass. Aug. 19, 2008) (refusing to decertify the class based upon alleged differences in the needs and conditions of persons in nursing facilities); Van Meter v. Harvey, 272 F.R.D. 274, 282 (D. Me. 2011). See also, Conn. Office of Prot. and Advocacy, 706 F. Supp. 2d at 266; (certifying a class of individuals with mental illness unnecessarily segregated in nursing facilities); Long v. Benson,
AR-v.-Dudek-Amicus-brief-12-3-17.docx