SMITH v. CAROLINA MEDICAL CENTER, 11-2756. (2017)
Court: District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania
Number: infdco20170815d90
Visitors: 4
Filed: Aug. 03, 2017
Latest Update: Aug. 03, 2017
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW , this 2 nd day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the following motions: 1. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention (Doc. No. 38) by defendants Jorge Acosta, Nancy Seier, and Patricia Eroh (Doc. No. 58), 2. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention and relator's qui tam complaint (Doc. No. 1) by defendants Carolina Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Northeast Community Mental Health
Summary: ORDER LAWRENCE F. STENGEL , District Judge . AND NOW , this 2 nd day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the following motions: 1. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention (Doc. No. 38) by defendants Jorge Acosta, Nancy Seier, and Patricia Eroh (Doc. No. 58), 2. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention and relator's qui tam complaint (Doc. No. 1) by defendants Carolina Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Northeast Community Mental Health ..
More
ORDER
LAWRENCE F. STENGEL, District Judge.
AND NOW, this 2nd day of August, 2017, upon consideration of the following motions:
1. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention (Doc. No. 38) by defendants Jorge Acosta, Nancy Seier, and Patricia Eroh (Doc. No. 58),
2. motion to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention and relator's qui tam complaint (Doc. No. 1) by defendants Carolina Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Northeast Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Lehigh Valley Community Mental Health Centers, Inc., Melissa Chlebowski, and MCM Bethlehem Property (Doc. No. 59), and
3. motion for judgment on the pleadings and to join codefendants motions to dismiss the United States' complaint in intervention by defendants Melchor Martinez and MM Consultants (Doc. No. 78);
and considering the parties' responses: Smith's Response in Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 73); United States' Response in Opp. to Mot. to Dismiss (Doc. No. 76); Carolina et al. Reply (Doc. No. 80); United States' Response in Opp. to Mot. for J. on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 81); and Martinez's and MM Consultants' Reply (Doc. No. 84); as well as the supplemental briefs submitted: Smith's Supp. Response (Doc. No. 92); United States' Supp. Response (Doc. No. 93); Carolina et al. Supp. Response (Doc. No. 95); Martinez's and MM Consultants' Supp. Response (Doc. No. 96); and United States' Second Supp. Response (Doc. No. 98), IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that all three motions (Doc. Nos. 58, 59, and 78) are DENIED.
Source: Leagle
