H.A., by her guardians L.A. and S.A., and L.A. and S.A. individually1, et al., Plaintiffs v. Kathleen Hochul2, in her official capacity as Governor of the State of New York, et al., Defendants
DECISION & ORDER On September 13, 2016, five plaintiffs with developmental disabilities and their caregivers filed a complaint under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. §§12131-12134, and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (“Section 504″), 29 U.S.C. §794. Docket Item 1. They alleged that the defendants, then-Governor Andrew Cuomo and Dr. Theodore Kastner, then-Commissioner of the New York State Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (“OPWDD”) (collectively, “the state”), unlawfully had denied them access to OPWDD-funded programs that provide supported and community-based residential placements. Id. The plaintiffs also moved to certify two classes. Docket Item 3. This Court granted the state’s motion to dismiss on July 11, 2020. Docket Item 30. Although this Court determined that home-based segregation could plausibly constitute unjustified isolation under the ADA and Section 504, it concluded that the plaintiffs had not alleged facts sufficient to support that theory. And because the associational claims of the caregiver plaintiffs hinged on whether the underlying claims of the individuals with developmental disabilities were viable, this Court concluded that those associational claims likewise failed. But because neither set of claims was implausible as a matter of law, this Court granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their claims.3 The plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and again moved for class certification on September 8, 2020. Docket Items 32, 33. The state moved to dismiss the amended complaint on October 23, 2020. Docket Item 38. The plaintiffs responded on December 11, 2020, Docket Item 43, and on January 15, 2021, the state replied, Docket Item 48. For the following reasons, the state’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint is denied, and the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification is denied without prejudice as premature. FACTUAL BACKGROUND The plaintiffs in this case comprise two discrete groups.4 The Court first addresses the allegations of the “Residents” — “adults with developmental disabilities who [] qualify for services from [OPWDD]; [who] are not capable, by virtue of their developmental disabilities, [of] liv[ing] in the community without assistance and support; [who] are presently living…with parents and/or related caregiver(s); and [who] would prefer to live in the community in a supported residential setting but cannot because there are insufficient available appropriate residential settings.” Docket Item 32 at 23. The Residents named as plaintiffs in this putative class action are five individuals residing in the Western District of New York: H.A., P.Y., P.M., M.M., and C.H. Plaintiff H.A., a woman in her thirties, lives with her parents, L.A. and S.A. Id. at 28. Because H.A. is “non-verbal” and “generally non-ambulatory,” she “uses assistive technology to communicate[,] requires total assistance with moving her wheelchair,” and is “completely dependent upon her caregivers for all her daily living tasks.” Id. at 30. As a result, H.A., who wakes before her parents and is put to bed “considerably before [she] is ready to go to sleep,” spends much of her time “isolated and confined to her wheelchair…waiting for her parents to return to her” so that she can move about again. Id. at
