Hernandez v. County of Monterey

District Court, N.D. California·Decided September 26, 2023·No. 5:13-cv-02354·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 SAN JOSE DIVISION 7 8 JESSE HERNANDEZ, et al., Case No. 13-cv-02354-BLF

9 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO ENFORCE 10 v. SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND WELLPATH IMPLEMENTATION 11 COUNTY OF MONTEREY, et al., PLAN 12 Defendants. [Re: ECF 825]

14 15 This class action was filed in 2013 by several inmates (“Plaintiffs”) seeking relief from 16 constitutionally deficient conditions at the Monterey County Jail (“Jail”). The Jail is operated by 17 Defendant County of Monterey (“County”), which contracts with Defendant Wellpath, LLC 18 (“Wellpath”)1 to provide medical, mental health, and dental services at the Jail. The parties 19 entered into a Settlement Agreement that was approved by the Court in 2015 and Defendants 20 developed Implementation Plans that were approved by the Court in 2016. Plaintiffs assert that 21 since then, Wellpath has failed to provide minimally adequate medical, mental health, and dental 22 care required under the Settlement Agreement and the Wellpath Implementation Plan. Plaintiffs 23 have filed an enforcement motion, asking the Court to find that Wellpath is out of compliance with 24 forty-four requirements of the Settlement Agreement and Wellpath Implementation Plan, and to 25 impose civil contempt fines if Wellpath fails to come into compliance within six months. 26 Plaintiffs’ motion is GRANTED as to forty-three of the forty-four requirements at issue. 27 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 Settlement of the Action 3 Plaintiffs filed this class action in May 2013 on behalf of themselves and all other similarly 4 situated Jail inmates. See Compl., ECF 1. After more than two years of litigation regarding Jail 5 conditions, the parties entered into a Settlement Agreement that was approved by the Court in a 6 written order dated August 18, 2015 (“Final Approval Order”). See Final Approval Order, ECF 7 494. The Settlement Agreement requires Defendants to make changes with respect to numerous 8 aspects of the Jail’s operations, including – as relevant here – in the areas of medical, mental 9 health, and dental care. See id. Ex. A (Settlement Agreement). The terms of the Settlement 10 Agreement are incorporated into the Court’s Final Approval Order, which provides that the 11 Settlement Agreement “has the full force and effect of an order of this Court.” Final Approval 12 Order at 3. Defendants were required to develop Implementation Plans describing how they 13 would meet their obligations under the Settlement Agreement, and those Implementation Plans are 14 “enforceable by the Court as part of the Settlement Agreement.” Id. The Settlement Agreement 15 gives the Court jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement and Implementation 16 Plans for a period of five years, which period may be extended. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 46. 17 Mechanism for Enforcement 18 In the event Plaintiffs believe that Defendants are out of compliance with the Settlement 19 Agreement and/or Implementation Plans, they must give Defendants written notice of their belief 20 and the facts supporting their belief. See Settlement Agreement ¶ 48. Defendants must investigate 21 and respond to the notice within 30 days. See id. The parties must attempt informal resolution, 22 first through negotiation and then through mediation. See id. If the parties cannot resolve the 23 issues, either party “may move the Court for any relief permitted by law or equity.” Id. 24 If the Court finds that Defendants are not in substantial compliance with the Settlement 25 Agreement and/or Implementation Plans, the Court shall require Defendants to submit a plan to 26 remedy the deficiencies for Court approval. See Final Approval Order at 3. If the Court thereafter 27 determines that Defendants’ plan did not remedy the deficiencies, the Court may enforce 1 Development of Implementation Plans and Appointment of Neutral Monitors 2 The County developed an Implementation Plan addressing intake screening, cell 3 monitoring, staffing, and similar issues, while Wellpath developed an Implementation Plan 4 focused on medical, mental health, and dental care. See County Implementation Plan, ECF 514; 5 Wellpath Implementation Plan, ECF 532. The Court approved both plans in May 2016 with some 6 modifications. See Order, ECF 549. In August 2016, the Court appointed neutral monitors to 7 monitor Defendants’ compliance with the Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plans in five 8 distinct areas: medical care, mental health care, dental care, Americans with Disabilities Act 9 compliance, and corrections/safety. See Order, ECF 563. The Court authorized each monitor to 10 conduct two site visits per year. See id. at 3. Twice a year, each monitor must prepare a written 11 report regarding Defendants’ compliance. See id. at 4. 12 Plaintiffs’ February 2020 Notice to Defendants Re Lack of Substantial Compliance 13 In February 2020, Plaintiffs gave Defendants written notice of Plaintiffs’ belief that 14 Defendants were not in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and 15 Implementation Plans. See 2020 Joint Status Report and Order, ECF 671. The parties met and 16 conferred several times and participated in a two-day “summit” that included all parties and all 17 five monitors. See id. at 2. The parties thereafter entered into a stipulation requiring Defendants 18 to develop corrective action plans addressing all areas in which the neutral monitors had found 19 lack of substantial compliance. See id. The stipulation included a one-year extension (through 20 August 2022) of the five-year period for Jail monitoring and the Court’s retention of jurisdiction. 21 See id. at 2-3. The Court approved the parties’ stipulation and incorporated its terms in an order 22 dated May 29, 2020. See id. at 4-5. 23 Plaintiffs’ January 2022 Notice to Defendants Re Lack of Substantial Compliance 24 In January 2022, Plaintiffs gave Defendants a second written notice of Plaintiffs’ belief 25 that Defendants were not in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and 26 Implementation Plans. See 2022 Joint Status Report and Order, ECF 751. The parties thereafter 27 met and conferred several times, and ultimately entered into another stipulation. See id. The 1 and that the neutral monitors could provide enhanced monitoring and mentoring with respect to 2 other requirements. See id. at 3. The stipulation included a two-year extension (through August 3 2024) of monitoring with respect to safety, security, and ADA-architectural issues, and a three- 4 year extension (through August 2025) of monitoring with respect to medical, mental health, 5 dental, and ADA-programmatic issues. See id. at 2-3. The Court’s jurisdiction to enforce the 6 Settlement Agreement and Implementation Plans was extended for corresponding periods of time. 7 See id. The Court approved the stipulation and incorporated its terms in an order dated June 3, 8 2022. See id. at 6-7. 9 Plaintiffs’ December 2022 Notice to Defendants Re Lack of Substantial Compliance 10 In December 2022, Plaintiffs gave Defendants a third written notice of Plaintiffs’ belief 11 that Defendants were not in substantial compliance with the Settlement Agreement and 12 Implementation Plans. See Swearingen Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 1 (Dec. 16, 2022 Letter), ECF 825-8. 13 Counsel for Plaintiffs, the County, and Wellpath met and conferred but were not able to resolve 14 the issues raised by Plaintiffs. See id. ¶ 6. The parties then attempted to mediate with the aid of 15 Magistrate Judge Nathanael Cousins. See id. Judge Cousins conducted two mediation sessions 16 with the parties, on February 17, 2023 and April 7, 2023. See Minute Entries, ECF 765, 771. 17 Plaintiffs and the County resolved their issues, but Plaintiffs and Wellpath were not able to reach 18 resolution. See Minute Entry, ECF 771.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hernandez v. County of Monterey, (N.D. Cal. 2023).

Hernandez v. County of Monterey (Hernandez v. County of Monterey) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Shell Offshore Inc. v. Greenpeace, Inc.
815 F.3d 623 (Ninth Circuit, 2016)
Victor Parsons v. Charles Ryan
949 F.3d 443 (Ninth Circuit, 2020)