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

Filing 40

ORDER Granting Plaintiff Leave to File First Amended Complaint and Deny 29 31 Motions to Dismiss as Moot, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 6/29/2017. (Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint by 7/7/2017.)(Gaumnitz, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES and the STATE OF
CALIFORNIA ex rel. NICOLE O’NEILL,
and NICOLE,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

Plaintiff,
v.
SOMNIA, INC., PRIMARY
ANESTHESIA SERVICES, MCKESSON
CORPORATION, ROBERT
GOLDSTEIN, M.D., ROY WINSTON,
M.D., BYRON MENDENHALL, M.D.,
QUINN GEE, M.D., and MARGARET
VASSILEV, M.D., and DOES 1 through
10 inclusive,

No. 1:15-cv-00433-GSA-DAD

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO
FILE FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT AND
DENY MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS MOOT
(Doc. Nos. 29, 31, 39)

Defendants.
The parties’ have submitted a stipulation that plaintiff be granted leave to file a first

22

amended complaint in this action. (Doc. No. 39.) By way of background, on June 7, 2017 the

23

Somnia defendants and defendant McKesson filed separate motions to dismiss. (Doc. Nos. 29,

24

31.) Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss is due July 7, 2017. However, as

25

indicated in the parties’ stipulation, plaintiff now intends to file a first amended complaint

26

because the “original complaint erroneously named McKesson Corporation as a defendant, when

27

the business entity that is actually described in the complaint was a subsidiary of McKesson

28

Corporation which had previously been transferred to Change Healthcare, Inc., and is now known
1

1

as PST Services LLC.” (Doc. No. 39 at 2.)
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2) provides, “a party may amend its pleading only

2
3

with the opposing party’s written consent or the court’s leave.” Here, since all parties have

4

stipulated to plaintiff’s filing of a first amended complaint, the pending motions to dismiss (Doc.

5

Nos. 29, 31) are rendered moot and the August 1, 2017 hearing date on those motions will be

6

vacated.

7

For these reasons:

8

1. Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 29, 31) are denied as having been rendered

9

moot by this order;

10

2. Plaintiff shall file a first amended complaint by July 7, 2017;

11

3. Defendants shall file their responses1 or answer to the first amended complaint by

12

August 7, 2017;
4. Plaintiff shall file her oppositions to defendants’ motions to dismiss the first amended

13
14

complaint, if any, by September 6, 2017 to; and

15

5. Defendants shall file any replies in support of any motions to dismiss by September

16
17

20, 2017.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

Dated:

June 29, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

If defendants response is a motion to dismiss, the motion shall be noticed for hearing in keeping
with Local Rule 230(b).
2