Robidoux v. Celani

987 F.2d 931 (2d. Cir. 1993)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

This is an action by three recipients of public assistance in Vermont (P) seeking to represent a class of persons whose applications for public assistance have been delayed unlawfully by the Vermont Department of Social Welfare (D).Federal regulations require state social welfare agencies to determine an applicant's eligibility for public assistance programs within certain time periods. State agencies must make eligibility decisions for the Food Stamp program within 30 days of the date of application. 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(g). An applicant's eligibility for the ANFC program within the time set by state law, not to exceed 45 days. 45 C.F.R. § 206.10(a)(3)(i). Vermont's welfare regulations require the Department to decide upon ANFC applications within 30 days. Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual § 2210. Thus, the Department must make decisions on both Food Stamp and ANFC applications within 30 days of the date of application. The deadlines do not apply where the Department cannot make a timely decision because of an applicant's delay in completing the application. Vermont Welfare Assistance Manual § 2210 (ANFC); 7 C.F.R. § 273.2(h). The sole source of income for Ps and their families is public assistance, unemployment insurance, or social security benefits. In spring 1991, finding their resources inadequate to support their families, Ps applied for Food Stamp and/or ANFC benefits to supplement their incomes. The Department did not process any of these applications within the 30-day deadlines. P filed suit and intervenors joined, and they moved pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(2), to certify as a class 'all current and future Vermont applicants for assistance from the Food Stamp, ANFC, and Fuel Assistance Programs.' They submitted evidence that 8 percent of the approximately 800 monthly Vermont Food Stamp applications, or about 65 applications per month, had taken more than 30 days to process and that nearly 2 percent, of quarterly ANFC applications had taken the Department more than 45 days to process during that same period. The district court denied the motion for class certification. The district court concluded that Appellants had not shown sufficient evidence of numerosity, because plaintiff has the burden to show that the class is so large that joinder is impossible. P has only shown three people who may be affected, and speculatively an undetermined number of future class members. The court found that there was no showing of significant possibility of future harm, and that 'without a showing of continuous harm P had no standing to represent a class.' After a motion and hearing for reconsideration, the district court granted summary judgment for D, ruling that Ps' claims were moot. The court found that there was not a reasonable expectation that Appellants would be subjected to the same harm in the future.