U.S. ex rel. Perkins v. Wellcare Health Plans, Inc., 8:12-cv-2032-T-30AAS. (2016)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20161130906
Visitors: 13
Filed: Nov. 29, 2016
Latest Update: Nov. 29, 2016
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon the Report and Recommendation submitted by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone (Dkt. 90) and Defendant WellCare Health Plans, Inc.'s Objections (Dkt. 91). After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's Objections, and, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recomme
Summary: ORDER JAMES S. MOODY, Jr. , District Judge . THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon the Report and Recommendation submitted by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone (Dkt. 90) and Defendant WellCare Health Plans, Inc.'s Objections (Dkt. 91). After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's Objections, and, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommen..
More
ORDER
JAMES S. MOODY, Jr., District Judge.
THIS CAUSE came on for consideration upon the Report and Recommendation submitted by Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone (Dkt. 90) and Defendant WellCare Health Plans, Inc.'s Objections (Dkt. 91). After careful consideration of the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, Defendant's Objections, and, in conjunction with an independent examination of the file, the Court is of the opinion that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation should be adopted in part and reversed in part.
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation recommends that the Court grant pro se Plaintiff's Oral Motion to Dismiss this case without prejudice.1 The Court adopts the Report and Recommendation to the extent that it agrees that the dismissal of Plaintiff's case should be without prejudice. However, as Defendant points out in its Objections, the dismissal shall include the condition that, in the event Plaintiff chooses to re-file her case, she must first pay Defendant's attorney's fees and costs in the amount of $20,000.2 The Court attaches this condition to any refiling of Plaintiff's case because this case has been pending since 2012, and Defendant incurred considerable expenses litigating this case. For example, Defendant filed two motions to dismiss, which this Court granted; Defendant responded to extensive discovery requests; Defendant spent nearly seven weeks attempting to schedule Plaintiff's deposition; and Defendant filed discovery motions.
It is therefore ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that:
1. The Report and Recommendation (Dkt. 90) of the Magistrate Judge is adopted, confirmed, and approved in part and reversed in part as explained herein. To the extent the Report and Recommendation is adopted, it is made a part of this order for all purposes, including appellate review.
2. Plaintiff's Oral Motion to Dismiss the Case without Prejudice (Dkt. 89) is granted to the extent that this Court dismisses this case without prejudice upon the condition that Plaintiff Roxanne Perkins pay an award of Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000) of Defendant's attorney's fees and costs upon any re-filing of this action.
3. Defendant's Motion to Compel (Dkt. 80) is denied as moot.
4. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case and terminate any pending motions as moot.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff requested dismissal of her case at a November 9, 2016 status conference conducted by the Magistrate Judge on the status of Plaintiff's attempts to obtain counsel. Plaintiff's prior counsel had withdrawn from this case on October 11, 2016.
2. Defendant requests an amount of $30,000, which it contends is less than the fees it has incurred in this case. The Court reduces the amount to $20,000, which it concludes is a more reasonable amount under the circumstances.
Source: Leagle
