Filed: Jul. 21, 2016
Latest Update: Jul. 21, 2016
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff, Relator's, motion to reopen case (Doc 86), response thereto (Doc. 87), Plaintiff's amended motion to strike response at Docket 87 (Doc. 89), and response (90). This is a qui tam action wherein the real party in interest is the United States of America. The Relator and Defendant notified the Court on June 27, 2016 that the case was settled and asked for the case to be administratively closed
Summary: ORDER ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH , District Judge . This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff, Relator's, motion to reopen case (Doc 86), response thereto (Doc. 87), Plaintiff's amended motion to strike response at Docket 87 (Doc. 89), and response (90). This is a qui tam action wherein the real party in interest is the United States of America. The Relator and Defendant notified the Court on June 27, 2016 that the case was settled and asked for the case to be administratively closed ..
More
ORDER
ELIZABETH A. KOVACHEVICH, District Judge.
This cause is before the Court on the Plaintiff, Relator's, motion to reopen case (Doc 86), response thereto (Doc. 87), Plaintiff's amended motion to strike response at Docket 87 (Doc. 89), and response (90). This is a qui tam action wherein the real party in interest is the United States of America. The Relator and Defendant notified the Court on June 27, 2016 that the case was settled and asked for the case to be administratively closed until August 28, 2016, which was done by the Court. The next day, June 28, the Plaintiff filed the motion to reopen and the Defendant filed an opposition thereto. The opposition asserts that the Plaintiff has not shown good cause to reopen this case at this juncture. The Plaintiff moves to strike the response claiming in is a motion to enforce the settlement. The Court does not find the motion to strike persuasive and it will be denied.
There remains before the Court the motion to reopen. In this case, the real party in interest is the United States of America and the government does not support the motion to reopen this case. In fact the government has stated:
[T]hat notwithstanding Relator's Motion to Reopen, the Government intends to continue the process of drafting a settlement and seeking approvals. AUSA Kenneth has further represented that if the necessary approvals are obtained, the United States will be prepared to intervene for the limited purposes of settling this action over Relator's objection pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(B), which provides that "[t]he Government may settle the action with the defendant notwithstanding the objections of the person initiating the action if the court determines, after a hearing, that the proposed settlement is fair, adequate, and reasonable under all the circumstances. . . . (Doc. 90, pg. 2)
The Relator apparently became unhappy with a non-monetary provision of the settlement after the Court was notified of the settlement and wants the case to proceed forward. However, the Court does not find her arguments persuasive. It is clear that the Relator, cannot stop the settlement from going forward if the government opts for that result. As pointed out by the Defendant, the Relator may pursue a settlement fairness hearing pursuant to 31 U.S.C. §3730 (c)(2)(B) at a later date if she finds it appropriate. The Court finds no reason to reopen this case at this time. The administrative closure will remain in effect as previously ordered. Accordingly, it is
ORDERED that the motion to reopen case (Doc 86) and Plaintiff's amended motion to strike response at Docket 87 (Doc. 89) be denied.
