United States of America et al v. Lincare, Inc. et al

Filing 47

ORDER DISMISSING CASE re: 46 Stipulation of Dismissal filed by Stephanie Strong Blankenship with prejudice as to Plaintiff-Relator Blakenship and without prejudice as to the rights of the United States as set out. Signed by Chief Judge Kristi K. DuBose on 08/02/202. (srd)

Case 2:19-cv-00104-KD-N Document 47 Filed 08/02/21 Page 1 of 2

PageID #: 336

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.,
STEPHANIE STRONG BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiffs,
v.
LINCARE, INC.,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:19-00104-KD-N

ORDER
This action is before the Court on Plaintiff-Relator Stephanie Strong Blankenship and
Defendant Lincare, Inc.’s joint stipulation of dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii)
(doc. 46). Upon consideration, and for the reasons set forth herein, this action is dismissed with
prejudice as to the claims, counts, and causes of action asserted by Blankenship and dismissed
without prejudice as to the rights of the United States. The Clerk is directed to close this action.
I. Background
On March 6, 2019, Blankenship, a former Lincare employee, filed a three-count sealed
complaint against Lincare, Inc. and Lincare Holdings, Inc. (doc. 1). She alleged causes of action
under the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3729 et seq. Specifically, in Counts I and II, Blankenship
alleged qui tam causes of action for violations of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)(A) and (B), respectively.
In Count III, she alleged a violation of the False Claim Act’s anti-retaliation provision, 31 U.S.C. §
3730(h).
The United States elected not to intervene in this action (doc. 7). The Court unsealed the
complaint and directed Blankenship to serve the defendants (doc. 8). Blankenship later amended the
complaint to drop all claims against Lincare Holdings, Inc. and it was dismissed from the action
(doc. 23). Subsequently, Lincare’s motion to dismiss was denied in part and granted in part (doc.

Case 2:19-cv-00104-KD-N Document 47 Filed 08/02/21 Page 2 of 2

PageID #: 337

35). The action proceeded to discovery (doc. 45, Rule 16(b) Scheduling Order).
II. Analysis
Blankenship and Lincare now stipulate to dismissal of this action with prejudice as to
Blankenship’s claims, counts, and causes of action asserted in this action (doc. 46). Pursuant to 31
U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the Attorney General, acting through the Assistant United States Attorney,
gives written consent to dismissal without prejudice to the rights of the United States, and states its
reasons for the consent (Id.). Specifically, consent was based upon the United States’ review of the
allegations and the evidence and its determination that dismissal was commensurate with the public
interest. The United States also acknowledges that it has no interest in Count III, brought pursuant
to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h).
The relevant statute, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), provides that actions by “private persons . . .
may be dismissed only if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal
and their reasons for consenting.” See Jallali v. Nova Se. Univ., Inc., 486 Fed. Appx. 765, 767 (11th
Cir. 2012) (“The consent requirement in § 3730(b)(1) applies only to voluntary dismissals.”). As
required, the Attorney General has given written consent and his reasons for consenting.
III. Conclusion
Upon consideration, the stipulation of dismissal is approved by the Court. Accordingly, all
claims, counts, and causes of action alleged in the First Amended Complaint are dismissed with
prejudice as to Plaintiff-Relator Blankenship. Counts I and II of the First Amended Complaint are
dismissed without prejudice to the rights of the United States.
DONE and ORDERED this the 2nd day of August 2021.
s/ Kristi K. DuBose
KRISTI K. DuBOSE
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2