Read v. Mountain Valleys Inc

Filing 65

STIPULATION AND ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 2/3/09 ORDERING that the claims brought on behalf of the State of California are DISMISSED with prejudice as to the relator; As to the State of California, the claims brought on behalf of the State of California are DISMISSED with prejudice as to the "Covered Conduct" as defined in Exhibit 1, and without prejudice as to all other claims brought on behalf of the State of California; and this Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the aforementioned settlement agreement. (Becknal, R)

Download PDF
1 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California 2 MARK ZAHNER Chief Prosecutor 3 State Bar No. 137732 BRIAN V. FRANKEL 4 Supervising Deputy Attorney General State Bar No. 116802 1455 Frazee Road, Suite 315 5 San Diego, CA 92108 Telephone: (619) 688-6065 6 Fax: (619) 688-4200 Attorneys for STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 v. MOUNTAIN VALLEYS HEALTH CENTERS, INC., Defendant. STIPULATION WHEREAS, the State of California, defendant, and relator have entered into a settlement UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ex rel. DAVID T. READ, Plaintiffs, CIV-S-04-0190 FCD GGH STATE OF CALIFORNIA'S STIPULATION AND ORDER OF DISMISSAL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 21 agreement which resolves the claims brought on behalf of the State of California (a copy of the 22 fully executed settlement agreement is attached hereto as Exhibit 1); 23 WHEREAS, the claims brought on behalf of the United States were also resolved by the 24 aforementioned settlement agreement; 25 WHEREAS, the United States will be filing a separate pleading addressing the dismissal of 26 the claims brought on behalf of the United States; 27 WHEREAS, the issue of what documents within the Court's file should be unsealed or 28 should remain under seal has already been addressed by the Court's Order signed on 12/22/08 1 1 and filed on 12/22/08; 2 WHEREAS, no answer or other responsive pleading has been filed in this action by the 3 defendants; 4 IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by the State of California and relator David 5 T. Read, through their respective counsel of record: 6 7 1. Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P., Rule 41(a)(1): a. the claims brought on behalf of the State of California shall be dismissed with 8 prejudice as to the relator; and 9 b. as to the State of California, the claims brought on behalf of the State of California 10 shall be dismissed with prejudice as to the "Covered Conduct" as defined in Exhibit 1, and 11 without prejudice as to all other claims brought on behalf of the State of California. 12 2. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the aforementioned settlement 13 agreement. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Dated: 1/23/09 Dated: 1/23/09 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. Attorney General of the State of California /s/ Brian V. Frankel By: BRIAN V. FRANKEL Supervising Deputy Attorney General Attorneys for the State of California /s/ Gail Killefer By: GAIL KILLEFER, ESQ. Attorney for Relator DAVID T. READ [original signature retained by counsel] 2 1 2 3 ORDER Pursuant to stipulation and for good cause shown, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT: 1. The claims brought on behalf of the State of California are dismissed with prejudice as 4 to the relator. 5 2. As to the State of California, the claims brought on behalf of the State of California are 6 dismissed with prejudice as to the "Covered Conduct" as defined in Exhibit 1, and without 7 prejudice as to all other claims brought on behalf of the State of California. 8 3. This Court shall retain jurisdiction to enforce the terms of the aforementioned settlement 9 agreement. 10 11 Dated: February 3, 2009 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 3

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?