|
Case No. RG07361190, Superior Court for the State of California, Alameda County, filed December 13, 2007.
In November 2004, the voters of California enacted the Mental Health Services Act to increase mental health services in California. Two provisions contained in the act were that existing programs for mental health services had to be kept in place at the same effort as before the MHSA was enacted and that MHSA funds could not be used to fund pre-existing programs. One such program was the Integrated Services for Homeless Adults with Serious Mental Illness Program. The program provided homeless adults with serious mental illnesses with mental health services, job training, housing and other support services.
In August 2007, Governor Schwarzenegger eliminated the program through a line item veto, violating the provisions of the MHSA. MHSA funds were then released to participating counties to keep the programs running for a short period of time from the general funds of the MHSA, thus violating the non-supplantation clause of the MHSA.
The National Center for Youth Law and other co-counsel assisted Plaintiffs in filing suit against the Governor and the California Department of Mental Health for their actions on December 13, 2007. The complaint alleged a violation of the MHSA’s maintenance of effort requirement and a violation of the non-supplantation clause. The Plaintiffs have requested a write of mandate ordering Respondents to reinstate the Homeless Adults Program and issue continuing and retroactive payment to the counties or cities for the program. The Plaintiffs have also requested an order enjoining the Respondents from deleting the funding for the program as it is a violation of the MHSA and a declaratory judgment that the elimination of the funding is a violation of Welfare and Institutions Code § 5891.
On February 14, 2008, the Respondents filed a Demurrer against the Petition by the Plaintiffs, alleging that the Governor is not a proper party and that the causes of action requesting an enjoining order and declaratory judgment are improper as a writ of mandate is a complete remedy. On March 7, 2008, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to Respondents’ Demurrer, arguing the Governor is indeed a property party and that multiple forms of relief may be sought in addition to the writ of mandate. Respondents Reply to the Opposition was filed on March 21, 2007. The hearing for the demurrer is scheduled for April 2, 2008 in Department 31 of the Alameda Superior Court in front of the Honorable Frank Roesch.
The state’s demurrer was overruled by the court. We are continuing to engage in discovery and the hearing on our request for a writ will be held in January of 2009.
Counsel: Patrick Gardner, National Center for Youth Law; Kimberly Lewis, Richard A. Rothschild, Jennifer A. Flory, Western Center on Law & Poverty, Inc.; Daniel Brzovic, Andrew Mudryk, Sean Rashkis, Protection & Advocacy, Inc.; James Preis, Mental Health Advocacy Services; Steven L. Mayer, Rebecca M. Kahan, Howard Rice Nemerovski Candady Falk & Rabkin.
|
