Biotronik, Inc. v. Sant

Filing 6

RELATED CASE ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/1/16. The case of Biotronik II, Case No. 2:16-cv-01632-MCE-GGH, is not related to the case of Biotronik I, Case No. 2:09-cv-3617- KJM-EFB, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a), and the court does not reassign it. (Kaminski, H)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
ex rel. JOHN DOE, RELATOR,
Plaintiffs,

13
v.

14
15

BIOTRONIK, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

___________________________________
No. 2:16-cv-01632-MCE-GGH
BIOTRONIK, INC.,
Plaintiff,

19

RELATED CASE ORDER

v.

20
21

No. 2:09-cv-3617-KJM-EFB (CLOSED)

BRIAN SANT,
Defendant.

22
23
24
25

/////

26

/////

27

/////

28
1

1
2

Examination of the above-captioned actions reveals they are not related within the
meaning of Local Rule 123(a). Local Rule 123(a) provides that:

3

An action is related to another . . . when

4

(1) both actions involve the same parties and are based on the same
or a similar claim;

5
6
7
8
9
10
11

(2) both actions involve the same property, transaction, or event;
(3) both actions involve similar questions of fact and the same
question of law and their assignment to the same Judge or
Magistrate Judge is likely to effect a substantial savings of
judicial effort, either because the same result should follow in
both actions or otherwise; or
(4) for any other reasons, it would entail substantial duplication of
labor if the actions were heard by different Judges or Magistrate
Judges.

12

On December 31, 2009, Biotronik, Inc.’s former employee, Brian Sant, filed a qui

13

tam action, alleging, among other things, that Biotronik violated the federal False Claims Act, 31

14

U.S.C. §3729 et seq., and certain state statutes by providing monetary and other incentives for

15

physicians to use Biotronik devices. U.S. ex rel. John Doe v. Biotronik, Inc., Case No. 2:09-cv-

16

3617-KJM-EFB (E.D. Cal. filed Dec. 31, 2009) (“Biotronik I”). On May 28, 2014, Sant, the

17

United States, and Nevada filed a stipulation for dismissal, which provided that the dismissal was

18

“in accordance with the terms and conditions of the respective Settlement Agreements,” and that

19

the dismissal was with prejudice as to Sant. Biotronik I, ECF No. 64. On June 5, 2014, the

20

undersigned approved the parties’ stipulation and dismissed the action with prejudice as to Sant.

21

Id., ECF No. 69. On June 6, 2014, judgment was entered and the case was closed. Id., ECF No.

22

70. The undersigned subsequently resolved requests to seal and a motion for attorneys’ fees. See

23

id., ECF Nos. 76, 77, 160, 171, 172.

24

Earlier this year, Biotronik was served with a complaint that was filed by Sant in

25

California state court in 2011, Case No. 34-2011-00098562 (Sacramento Cty. Super. Ct. filed

26

Mar. 2, 2011). See Biotronik v. Sant, Case No. 2:16-cv-01632-MCE-GGH (E.D. Cal. filed July

27

15, 2016) (“Biotronik II”), ECF No. 1. The state court complaint makes similar allegations as

28

does the complaint in Biotronik I, that Biotronik provided kickbacks to physicians to use its
2

1

devices, but seeks relief under California’s Insurance Fraud Prevention Act. Id. Ex. 2 (state court

2

complaint). On July 15, 2016, Biotronik filed an action in federal court, Biotronik II, alleging

3

Sant released the claims he is pursuing in state court in the Biotronik I settlement agreement and

4

breached the settlement agreement by pursuing those claims. Id., ECF No. 1.

5

Biotronik now seeks to relate Biotronik II to Biotronik I. Id., ECF No. 4.

6

Biotronik argues it would likely effect a substantial savings of judicial effort to relate the two

7

cases, because the undersigned dismissed Biotronik I in accordance with the terms of the parties’

8

settlement agreement. Id. The court disagrees. Although both actions involve Biotronik and

9

Sant, they are based on different claims, arise from different events, and involve different

10

questions of fact and law. Biotronik I involved allegations that Biotronik provided kickbacks to

11

physicians in violation of the False Claims Act and certain state statutes, whereas Biotronik II

12

involves allegations that Sant breached a settlement agreement with Biotronik. The fact that the

13

undersigned was presiding over the action in Biotronik I at the time the settlement agreement was

14

signed does not alone justify relation of the two cases. The court finds it is not likely

15

reassignment of Biotronik II to the undersigned would effect a substantial savings of judicial

16

effort or prevent substantial duplication of labor. Accordingly, the case of Biotronik II, Case

17

No. 2:16-cv-01632-MCE-GGH, is not related to the case of Biotronik I, Case No. 2:09-cv-3617-

18

KJM-EFB, within the meaning of Local Rule 123(a), and the court does not reassign it.

19
20

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: August 1, 2016.

21
22
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
3