Blog of law articles

Sorry I'm a little late with this morning's post, but I became transfixed by Drew Barrymore on the CBS Early Show. What a cutie, I totally understand why some poor schlub would make an entire documentary simply about trying to meet her.

Well, Judge Jordan just won't stay out of the news.

John Pacenti reports on yesterday's orders:

Two medical associations suing on behalf of poor children seeking basic health care from the state earned two critical victories in federal court.

U.S. District Judge Adalberto Jordan in Miami granted class action status Wednesday and denied the state’s dismissal motion.

The Florida Pediatric Society and the Florida Academy of Pediatric Dentistry claimed in the 2005 lawsuit that the state violates federal law by denying preventative health care to more than 1.5 million children.

Jordan said all Medicaid-eligible children under 21 who reside or will reside in Florida are part of the class. He rejected a claim by the state Agency for Health Care Administration that class-action status should be denied because not all class members are known at this time.

Actually, it's a pretty terse order for this Judge.

Stuart Singer was appointed class counsel, and the State was represented by Chesterfield H. Smith, Jr. as well as Marcos Jimenez from Kenny Nachwalter.

Magistrate Judge McAliley prepared an R&R recommending certification, which the defendants objected to.

I'm not too sure the Judge liked the number of objections:

Despite this precedent, the Defendants hurl a litany of objections at the R&R. Though the objections are impressive in number, they lack merit.

The defendants also argued a number of factual disputes exist which must be resolved at the certification stage, something the Judge also rejected:

The defendants argue that the R&R applies an incorrect legal standard to determine whether the proposed class satisfies Rule 23's requirements and that I should conclusively resolve factual disputes where there is conflicting evidence. As is evident from the legal standard applicable to class actions, conclusive resolution of factual disputes is not required. I may accept the plaintiffs’ allegations as true and may “consider the merits of the case to the degree necessary to determine whether the requirements of Rule 23 will be satisfied.” See Vega, 564 F.3d at 1265-66.

Finally, the Judge denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and though the order is also somewhat terse, it is lightened by the Court's Gonzaga analysis (a case right up there with Venetian Salami).

It will be very interesting to see where this one leads.