United States of America et al -v- Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al

Filing 246

ORDER by Judge Edward M. Chen Granting 183 United States' Motion to Dismiss. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/5/2019)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

ORDER GRANTING UNITED
STATES’ MOTION TO DISMISS

v.
GILEAD SCIENCES, INC., et al.,

Docket No. 183

Defendants.

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

Case No. 11-cv-00941-EMC

12
13

Relators Jeff and Sherilyn Campie are former employees of Defendant Gilead Sciences,

14

Inc., a pharmaceutical drug manufacturer. They have filed a qui tam action against Gilead,

15

asserting, inter alia, a claim for violation of the federal False Claims Act (“FCA”). According to

16

the Campies, Gilead violated the FCA by submitting or causing to be submitted false claims for

17

payment under government payment programs such as Medicare and Medicaid. See 31 U.S.C. §

18

3729(a)(1)(A).

19

Previously, this Court granted Gilead’s motion to dismiss the Campies’ second amended

20

complaint (“SAC”). The Court dismissed not only the FCA claim but also related claims based on

21

state law, plus claims for retaliation under both the FCA and state law. On appeal, the Ninth

22

Circuit reversed and remanded to this Court. Currently pending before the Court is the United

23

States’ motion to dismiss. Although the government is not a party to this action (having declined

24

to intervene), it is a real party in interest and moves to dismiss pursuant to a provision in the FCA

25

that states as follows: “The Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the objections of

26

the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of the filing of

27

the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on the motion.”

28

31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A). The United States is moving to dismiss only the FCA claim, and not

1

any related claims based on state law or any retaliation claims, whether based on the FCA or state

2

law.
Having considered the parties’ and the United States’ briefs and supporting documents, as

3
4

well as the oral argument of counsel, the Court hereby GRANTS the motion.
I.

5
6

A.

FACTUAL & PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Operative Second Amended Complaint
As reflected in the Ninth Circuit’s decision on appeal, the gist of the Campies’ SAC is as

7
8

follows. Gilead, a drug manufacturer, produces anti-HIV drug therapies, including the drugs

9

Atripla, Truvada, and Emtriva. See United States ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Scis., 862 F.3d 890,
895 (9th Cir. 2017). All three drugs contain the active ingredient embricitabine, commonly known

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

as FTC. See id. at 896.
To sell the three drugs, Gilead had to obtain approval from the FDA by filing new drug

12
13

applications (“NDAs”).

14

In its NDA applications, Gilead represented to the FDA that it
would source the FTC from specific registered facilities in Canada,
Germany, the United States, and South Korea. But . . . as early as
2006, Gilead contracted with Synthetics China to manufacture
unapproved FTC at unregistered facilities. For a period of sixteen
months beginning in December 2007, Gilead brought illicit FTC
from a Synthetics China facility into the United States to use in its
commercial drugs, claiming that the FTC had come from its
approved South Korean manufacturer. . . .

15
16
17
18
19

Gilead ultimately sought approval from the FDA to use Synthetics
China’s FTC in October 2008, but . . . had been including products
from Synthetics China in its finished drug products for at least two
years before this approval was obtained in 2010.

20
21
22
23

Id.
According to the Campies, Gilead also engaged in misconduct because it used “falsified or

24

concealed data in support of its application to get Synthetics China approved by the FDA” – e.g.,

25

Gilead claimed in its application that “it had received three full-commercial-scale batches of FTC

26

from Synthetics China that passed testing and were consistent with or equivalent to FTC batches

27

made from existing, approved manufacturers” but concealed the fact that two of the three batches

28

actually failed internal testing. Id. “One of the batches purportedly contained ‘residual solvent
2

1

levels in excess of established limits’ and other impurities. A second batch had ‘microbial

2

contamination’ and showed the presence of arsenic, chromium and nickel contaminants.” Id.

3

Instead of reporting the failure to the FDA, Gilead “secured two new batches and amended its

4

[application] to include the substitute data.” Id.
The Campies allege that Gilead violated the FCA because it sought payment for its drugs

5
6

containing FTC either directly or indirectly from government programs, but payment for drugs

7

under these programs is contingent on FDA approval and, “because the drugs paid for by the

8

government contained FTC sourced at unregistered facilities, they were not FDA approved and

9

therefore not eligible for payment under the government programs.” Id. at 897.

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

B.

Procedural History
In March 2015, Gilead moved to dismiss the Campies’ SAC. Although the government

12

had declined to intervene in this lawsuit, it filed a statement of interest (as the real party interest)

13

in response to Gilead’s motion, just as it did when Gilead moved to dismiss an earlier complaint

14

filed by the Campies. See Docket No. 129 (government’s statement). Although the government

15

did not take a position on the ultimate merits of the Campies’ lawsuit, it made some arguments

16

that were favorable to the Campies – e.g., that the FCA can be violated even if the defendant did

17

not make a “direct misrepresentation . . . to the payor agency” and that “a deviation from the drug

18

manufacturing process approved by the [FDA] could be . . . tantamount to producing a drug that is

19

not the same drug approved by the FDA, thereby potentially forming the basis of a FCA

20

violation.” Docket No. 19 (St. at 2-2).

21

In June 2015, this Court granted Gilead’s motion to dismiss – dismissing not only the FCA

22

claim but also all remaining claims, including those based on retaliation. See Docket No. 142

23

(order). The Campies appealed. On appeal, the United States filed an amicus brief. Again, the

24

government made arguments that were favorable to the Campies (without taking a position on the

25

ultimate merits of their case) – e.g., that “a claim can be ‘false or fraudulent’ when someone

26

represents that it has sold something different from what was actually provided – regardless of

27

whether or not the resulting product was ‘worthless’” and that “it is possible to state an FCA claim

28

when a defendant makes false statements to one government agency, and those false statements
3

1

are material to the submission of false or fraudulent claims to another government agency.”

2

United States ex rel. Campie v. Gilead Scis., Inc., No. 15-16380 (9th Cir.) (Docket No. 20) (Br. at

3

15, 22). Ultimately, the Ninth Circuit found in favor of the Campies.

4

Gilead thereafter petitioned the Supreme Court for review. Apparently, the Supreme Court

5

asked the United States for its views on petition, see Docket No. 200 (Friedman Decl. ¶ 7), and, in

6

response, the government filed an amicus brief in November 2018. See Docket No. 200

7

(Friedman Decl., Ex. B) (amicus brief). In the brief, the government argued, inter alia, that the

8

Ninth Circuit correctly held that “the government’s continued payment for a product, after

9

learning that the manufacturer has made misrepresentations to the government regarding that
product, can be strong evidence that the misrepresentations were not material to the government’s

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

payment decisions” but that, “under the circumstances of this case, . . . the fact of continued

12

government payments did not by itself require dismissal of respondents’ claims at the pleading

13

stage.” Docket No. 200 (Friedman Decl., Ex. B) (Amicus Br. at 7).
However, in the same brief, the government also asserted for the first time that, if the case

14
15

were remanded back to the district court, it would
move to dismiss [the Campies’] suit under Section 3730(c)(2)(A).
That determination is based in part on the government’s thorough
investigation of respondents’ allegations and the merits thereof. In
addition, if this suit proceeded past the pleading stage, both parties
might file burdensome discovery and Touhy requests for FDA
documents and FDA employee discovery (and potentially trial
testimony), in order to establish “exactly what the government knew
and when,” which would distract from the agency’s public-health
responsibilities.” Based on all those considerations, the government
has concluded that allowing this suit to proceed to discovery (and
potentially a trial) would impinge on agency decisionmaking and
discretion and would disserve the interests of the United States.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23

Docket No. 200 (Friedman Decl., Ex. B) (Amicus Br. at 15).
II.

24
25

A.

DISCUSSION

Legal Standard

26
27
28

The purpose of the FCA is "to discourage fraud against the
government." The FCA imposes civil liability on any person who
knowingly uses a "false record or statement to get a false or
fraudulent claim paid or approved by the Government," and any
4

1
2
3
4
5

person who "conspires to defraud the Government by getting a false
or fraudulent claim allowed or paid." To encourage the disclosure
of potential fraud, under the qui tam provisions of the FCA, relators
may "bring a civil action for a violation of [§] 3729 for the person
and for the United States Government."
Cell Therapeutics, Inc. v. Lash Grp., Inc., 586 F.3d 1204, 1205 (9th Cir. 2010)
Although the FCA allows a private individual to bring a qui tam action, as noted above, the

6

act also contains a provision that allows the government to dismiss the action. Section

7

3730(c)(2)(A) states as follows: “The Government may dismiss the action notwithstanding the

8

objections of the person initiating the action if the person has been notified by the Government of

9

the filing of the motion and the court has provided the person with an opportunity for a hearing on

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

the motion.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(2)(A).
Section 3730(c)(2)(A), in and of itself, does not provide any standard by which to evaluate

12

a motion to dismiss by the government. However, the Ninth Circuit addressed the standard in

13

United States ex rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Baird-Neece Packing Corp., 151 F.3d 1139 (9th Cir.

14

1998), as both parties acknowledge.

15

In Sequoia, the Ninth Circuit recognized that the FCA “is silent regarding the

16

circumstances under which the government may dismiss a qui tam action,” but “the decision to

17

dismiss has been likened to a matter within the government’s prosecutorial discretion in enforcing

18

federal laws.” Id. at 1143; see also id. at 1144 (noting that amendments to the FCA “actually

19

increased, rather than decreased, executive control over qui tam lawsuits”). Accordingly, the court

20

rejected the proposition that “lack of merit” is the only ground upon which the government may

21

seek dismissal. Id. Even “a meritorious suit may be dismissed upon a proper showing.” Id.

22
23
24
25
26

As to what constitutes a proper showing, the Ninth Circuit endorsed the district court’s
two-step analysis to test the justification for dismissal
“(1) identification of a valid government purpose; and (2) a rational
relation between dismissal and accomplishment of the purpose.” If
the government satisfies the two-step test, the burden switches to the
relator “to demonstrate that dismissal is fraudulent, arbitrary and
capricious, or illegal.”

27
28
5

Id. at 11451; see also United States ex. rel. Sequoia Orange Co. v. Sunland Packing House Co.,

2

912 F. Supp. 1325, 1341 (E.D. Ca. 1995) (district court stating that the first step is “whether the

3

challenged action has a legitimate purpose” and that the second step is whether there is “a

4

reasonable fit between the governmental purpose and the agency action”). The Ninth Circuit also

5

indicated that a hearing on a motion to dismiss would be appropriate where “‘the relator presents a

6

colorable claim that the settlement or dismissal is unreasonable in light of existing evidence, that

7

the Government has not fully investigated the allegations, or that the Government’s decision was

8

based on arbitrary or improper considerations.’” Sequoia, 151 F.3d at 1145 (quoting the Senate

9

Report). Finally, the Ninth Circuit commented that the two-step analysis above was essentially

10

“[t]he same analysis [that] is applied to determine whether executive action violates substantive

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

1

due process.” Id.
In Sequoia, the district court had similarly commented that "there need not be a tight fitting

12
13

relationship between [the governmental purpose and the agency action]; it is enough that there are

14

plausible, or arguable, reasons supporting the agency decision." Id. Citing Heckler v. Chaney,

15

470 U.S. 821 (1985), the district court had also underscored that “[a]n agency’s decision not to

16

prosecute or enforce, by criminal or civil means, is a decision generally committed to an agency’s

17

absolute discretion.” Sequoia, 912 F. Supp. at 1351. In Heckler, the Supreme Court explained

18

that

19

an agency decision not to enforce often involves a complicated
balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within its
expertise. Thus, the agency must not only assess whether a violation
has occurred, but whether agency resources are best spent on this
violation or another, whether the agency is likely to succeed if it
acts, whether the particular enforcement action requested best fits
the agency’s overall policies, and, indeed, whether the agency has
enough resources to undertake the action at all. An agency
generally cannot act against each technical violation of the statute it
is charged with enforcing. The agency is far better equipped than
the courts to deal with the many variables involved in the proper
ordering of its priorities.

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Given the reference to substantive due process, the Court rejects the Campies’ suggestion that the
Administrative Procedures Act provides guidance in determining whether government action is
“arbitrary and capricious.”
6
1

1

Heckler, 470 U.S. at 831.
Consistent with the above, the Ninth Circuit noted in Sequoia that “a rational relation test

2
3

avoids any separation of powers concerns,” id.; that is, there was no indication that the judicial

4

review would pose a significant barrier to the executive branch’s exercise of its prosecutorial

5

authority. See Sequoia, 151 F.3d at 1145-46. The executive branch’s prosecutorial authority was

6

respected because no more was required to justify “the dismissal motion than [what] is mandated

7

by the Constitution itself” – i.e., due process prohibits arbitrary or irrational prosecutorial

8

decisions. Id. at 1146.
Not all courts have agreed with the Ninth Circuit’s approach. In fact, even though the

9

Ninth Circuit’s review is limited in nature, several circuit courts have endorsed an even less

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

rigorous review. For example, the D.C. Circuit has indicated that the government has an

12

“unfettered right to dismiss an action” under § 3730(c)(2)(A) and that “[t]he relator’s right to a

13

hearing” is “simply to give the relator a formal opportunity to convince the government not to end

14

the case.” Swift v. United States, 318 F.3d 250, 252-53 (D.C. Cir. 2003); see also United States v.

15

UCB, Inc., No. 17-CV-765-SMY-MAB, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 64267, at *5-6 (S.D. Ill. Apr. 15,

16

2019) (noting split of authority, with the Tenth Circuit following the Ninth Circuit, but with the

17

Fifth and Eighth Circuits following the D.C. Circuit).

18

B.

19

Valid Government Purpose
In its papers, the United States has identified two government purposes that would be

20

served by dismissal of the FCA claim: (1) “to prevent [the Campies] from undermining the

21

considered decisions of FDA and CMS about how to address the conduct at issue here,” and (2)

22

“to avoid the additional expenditure of government resources on a case that it fully investigated

23

and decided not to pursue,” especially as the FDA has “taken into account [the Campies’] claims

24

in its regulatory oversight of Gilead[] and taken actions it deemed appropriate.” Mot. at 8-9. In

25

response, the Campies do not claim that the identified purposes are invalid or illegitimate. Indeed,

26

they acknowledge that such purposes have been identified as relevant considerations by the U.S.

27

Department of Justice (“DOJ”). See Docket No. 200 (Friedman Decl., Ex. C) (in DOJ memo,

28

dated January 10, 2018, identifying factors for evaluating dismissal under § 3730(c)(2)(A),
7

1

including preventing interference with agency policies and programs and preserving government

2

resources); Docket No. 230 (Friedman Decl., Ex. C) (DOJ Manual § 4-4.111) (identifying same

3

factors); see also Docket No. 241 (3d Crooke Decl. ¶ 4) (noting that the DOJ manual incorporated

4

the substance of the DOJ memo from January 2018).
The Campies, however, do argue that there is an insufficient factual basis to support the

5
6

asserted government purposes. Cf. United States v. Acad. Mortg. Corp., No. 16-cv-02120-EMC,

7

2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70096, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 25, 2018) (noting that “a more searching

8

form of rational basis analysis applies where the factual record, not any conceivable justification,

9

matters”). For example, the Campies contend that, to the extent that the government seeks
dismissal based on cost, the government has not provided any evidence to show that it

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

“meaningful considered what the cost of the suit might be” and “failed to make even a cursory

12

showing that it had considered the potential proceeds from the litigation, a central factor in the

13

cost analysis.” United States v. Academy Mortgage Corp., No. 16-cv-02120-EMC, 2018 U.S.

14

Dist. LEXIS 171251, at *7, 9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 3, 2018).
The Court does not agree. Although the Campies have tried to analogize the instant case to

15
16

Academy Mortgage – another case over which the Court presided – Academy Mortgage was a

17

markedly different case from the case at bar. In Academy Mortgage, there was no indication that

18

the government had conducted any real investigation of the FCA claim, see United States v. Acad.

19

Mortg. Corp., No. 16-cv-02120-EMC, 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 109489, at *2, 4 (N.D. Cal. June

20

29, 2018) (stating that “[t]he Relator’s evidence showed that the Government performed only a

21

limited investigation of the original complaint” – i.e., interviewing the Relator and examining

22

documents produced by her and also turning down an “offer[] to provide additional information” –

23

and “appears not to have investigated the amended complaint at all”).
In the instant case, the Court has been presented with substantial evidence that, after the

24
25

Campies filed their lawsuit in 2010,2 the United States investigated their allegations “for over two

26

years.” Docket No. 184 (Russo Decl. ¶ 2). The investigation included review of the Campies’

27
28

As stated in the United States’ motion, “[t]his case was originally filed in the Eastern District of
Pennsylvania in August 2010 and transferred to this District in 2011.” Mot. at 2 n.1.
8
2

1

pleadings and disclosure statement (including accompanying materials), interviews of the

2

Campies, consultations with experts from the Department of Health and Human Services

3

(“DHHS”) (including the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), meetings with Gilead,

4

collection of documents (over 600,000 pages), interviews of witnesses, and review of the history

5

of multiple manufacturing lots identified by the Campies as having serious problems (including

6

supporting documentation). See Docket No. 184 (Russo Decl. ¶¶ 2-3).

7

Moreover, the instant case is somewhat unique in that the above was not the only

8

government investigation of the alleged misconduct identified by the Campies. Even before the

9

Campies filed suit – as well as thereafter – the FDA was involved with oversight of Gilead,
including specifically with respect to its use of Synthetics China. This is detailed in the Scavdis

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

Declaration submitted by the United States. See Docket No. 185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 1) (testifying

12

that he is an Assistant Special Agent in Charge at the FDA, Office of Criminal Investigations).

13

For example:
•

14

In 2008, Gilead applied (through a Prior Approval Supplement or “PAS”) for

15

permission to use FTC from a new manufacturer, i.e., Synthetics China. See

16

Docket No. 185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 2); see also Docket No. 198-6 (Wiener Decl. ¶ 23

17

& Ex. 6) (initial PAS). “In March 2009, FDA conducted an on-site inspection of

18

Synthetics China” and, “[a]s part of the inspection, Gilead disclosed that two

19

validation batches of API [active pharmaceutical ingredient] did not meet the

20

specifications for the drug[], but that changes were made to the process design and

21

the validation was repeated and acceptable results were obtained. FDA did not

22

issue a Form 483,[3] having recorded no deficiencies with the manufacturing or

23

testing operations at Synthetics China that warranted further action.” Docket No.

24

185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 2). In May 2009, FDA approved the PAS. See Docket No.

25

185 (Scavis Decl. ¶ 2).

26
27
28

3

A FDA Form 483 is also known as a Notice of Inspectional Observations. See Docket No. 201
(Wiener Decl. ¶ 34). “An FDA form 483 is issued at the end of an on-site inspection if the FDA
field investigator observes deficiencies in the facility’s quality system or conditions that violate
the FDCA.” Docket No. 201 (Wiener Decl. ¶ 34).
9

•

1

In early 2010, “FDA inspected Gilead’s San Dimas facility and identified certain

2

violations of the Current Good Manufacturing Practice (cGMP) regulations. . . .

3

FDA issued a Warning Letter on September 21, 2010.”4 Docket No. 185 (Scavdis

4

Decl. ¶ 3). Thereafter, “FDA evaluated the corrective actions that Gilead took in

5

response to the Warning Letter,” and, in August 2011, “FDA issued a letter to

6

Gilead stating that those corrective actions appeared to address the violations

7

identified in the Warning Letter.” Docket No. 185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 3).
•

8

but did not issue a Form 483 based on that inspection. See Docket No. 185

9

(Scavdis Decl. ¶ 4).

10
•

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

In April 2011, FDA did a second on-site inspection of the Synthetics China facility

“Between November 2011 and January 2012, Gilead submitted Field Alert Reports

12

to FDA related to particulates in finished product at Gilead’s Foster City facility.”

13

Docket No. 185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 5); see also Docket No. 201 (Wiener Decl. ¶ 41)

14

(referring to Gilead’s FAR in January 2012). FDA inspected the Foster City

15

facility in June 2012 and issued a Form 483 relating to cGMP deficiencies. See

16

Docket No. 185 (Scavdis Decl. ¶ 5). Gilead responded to the Form 483 in July

17

2012. In its response, Gilead addressed, inter alia, contamination of FTC sourced

18

from Synthetics China. See Docket No. 198-6 (Wiener Decl. ¶¶ 34, 42 & Ex. 13)

19

(Gilead’s response to Form 483). After receiving the response, FDA took no

20

further action, neither a recall nor a physician or consumer alert.
•

21

“In March 2012, FDA requested additional information about validation and

22

reprocessing of batches at Synthetics China, and received additional information

23

from Gilead in April 2012.” Docket No. 185 (Scavis Decl. ¶ 6). Thereafter, “[i]n

24

March 2013, FDA conducted a third on-site inspection of the Synthetics China

25

facility” but “did not issue a Form 483 based” on that inspection. Docket No. 185

26

(Scavis Decl. ¶ 6).

27
28

4

As noted above, the Campies initiated this lawsuit in August 2010. See Mot. at 2 n.1.
10

1

Given the above investigations spanning from 2009 to 2013, the Court finds that there is a

2

concrete factual basis for the United States to argue that allowing the Campies to proceed with the

3

FCA claim would “undermin[e] the considered decisions of FDA and CMS about how to address

4

the conduct at issue here.” Mot. at 10. Unlike Academy Mortgage, here, there was no cursory

5

decision to move for dismissal without an adequate record of an investigation by the government.

6

The Campies protest still that the factual basis for the other identified government purpose
supporting dismissal – i.e., cost of continued litigation on the FCA claim – lacks a sufficient

8

factual basis. The Campies note, in particular, that they offered to narrow the scope of their FCA

9

claim which would therefore lessen any burden to the United States if litigation were to continue.

10

The record reflects that the United States considered the Campies’ proposal to limit the scope of

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

7

their FCA claim but still concluded that dismissal was appropriate. See Docket No. 241 (3d

12

Crooke Decl. ¶¶ 2-3). Although the specificity of the government’s cost analysis in the Third

13

Crooke Declaration could have been more robust (the declaration did not provide specific details),

14

which would have been made this an easier case, the Campies’ argument ultimately is not

15

persuasive. As an initial matter, the Court does not accept the Campies’ suggestion that a cost-

16

benefit analysis must be quantitative in nature – i.e., that the United States is required to do some

17

kind of mathematical calculation. See United States ex rel. Balko v. Sr. Home Care, Inc., No.

18

8:13-cv-3072-T-17TBM, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121575, at *18-19 (M.D. Fla. May 2, 2017)

19

(rejecting relator’s argument that “the settlement amount is by definition ‘arbitrary’ because it is

20

not based on any mathematical valuation of the false claims and was simply an agreed-upon

21

number to which the Relator originally agreed to with no tether to the number or scope of the false

22

claims presented in the case”; stating that there is no requirement that the amount of a settlement

23

be “based on a mathematical formula of the alleged false claims”). The critical question is

24

whether the United States engaged in a meaningful consideration of cost and benefit such that its

25

decision to seek dismissal is supported by a rational basis.

26

The Campies assert that, even under a qualitative approach, there was not a meaningful

27

consideration of either benefit or cost. The Campies focus in particular on the benefit side of the

28

equation, maintaining that the United States did not consider in any way the proceeds that could be
11

1

obtained if the Campies were to prevail (even if the Campies were to narrow their FCA claim).

2

See, e.g., Docket No. 228-3 (Friedman Decl., Ex. B) (claiming that the narrowed FCA claim could

3

still be worth more than $100 million). But the United States has certified that it considered the

4

merits of the FCA claim and potential for monetary recovery, including after the Campies

5

proposed to narrow their FCA claim. See Docket No. 225 (2d Crooke Decl. ¶ 3); Docket No. 241

6

(3d Crooke Decl. ¶¶ 2-3). Although the Campies fairly argue that the certification is conclusory,

7

the Court cannot ignore the particular backdrop for the certification in this case – in particular, the

8

investigations done by the FDA between 2009 and 2013 which led to the issuance of only one

9

warning letter and one Form 483, each of which ultimately resulted in no further action by the
FDA after Gilead responded, including but not limited to a recall or even a consumer or physician

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

alert. As the government noted in its brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, the fact that it continued

12

payment notwithstanding its knowledge of Gilead’s misrepresentations casts some doubt on the

13

element of materiality.
As for the cost side of the equation, the Campies argue that there will be at most only a

14
15

limited discovery burden on the government if the FCA claim were to be litigated,5 but that

16

position is not convincing. A critical issue in this case will be whether Gilead’s alleged

17

misrepresentations were material, as Gilead is taking the position that materiality is lacking since

18

the FDA continued to approve the drugs at issue “even after the agency became aware of

19

[Gilead’s] noncompliance.” Gilead, 862 F.3d at 906. Thus, discovery into “exactly what the

20

government knew and when” cannot be avoided. Id. Under the facts of this case, this will likely

21

entail extensive discovery into government witnesses and documents by either or both the

22

Campies and Gilead.

23

Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is a factual basis in this case to support both

24

government purposes asserted by the United States and a rational relationship between dismissal

25
26
27
28

See Docket No. 200 (Friedman Decl., Ex. C) (DOJ memo) (noting that “[e]xamples of potential
costs may include, among other things, the need to monitor or participate in ongoing litigation,
including responding to discovery requests”).
5

12

1

and accomplishment of those purposes.6 Because the United States has satisfied Sequoia’s two-

2

step test, the burden now switches to the Campies “‘to demonstrate that dismissal is fraudulent,

3

arbitrary and capricious, or illegal.’” Sequoia, 151 F.3d at 1145.

4

C.

Arbitrary and Capricious
The Court holds that the Campies have failed to establish that dismissal would fall under

5
6

any of the above categories. The Campies primarily argue that the government’s request to

7

dismiss is arbitrary and capricious but, as indicated by the discussion above, that position is not

8

well supported under the particular facts and circumstances of this case. There was a multi-year

9

investigation into the Campies’ allegations and Gilead’s practices related to Synthetics China, and
the government made deliberate enforcement decisions in regard thereto. The government

11

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10

considered the burdens of this litigation evident in the nature of, e.g., the materiality issues likely

12

to be central to this case.
Other facts additionally point to a non-arbitrary approach by the United States with respect

13
14

to the instant case. For example:
•

15

The United States has never been dismissive of the Campies’ FCA claim, even

16

participating in the Ninth Circuit appeal and making arguments favorable to the

17

Campies.
•

18

The United States has been involved in this case from 2010 to the present, spanning
two different administrations.

19
•

20

There is nothing to suggest that the United States has a pattern of not taking qui

21

tam complaints seriously or a pattern of moving to dismiss. Between October 2017

22

and September 2019, more than 1,200 qui tam complaints have been filed and the

23

United States has intervened or partially intervened in approximately 218.7

24
25
26
27
28

6

This is not to say that, in different circumstances, a more specific showing needs to be made by
the government.
The United States’ involvement in the 218 cases may also have impacted the United States’
decision as to how to proceed with the instant case – i.e., given its limited resources, at a certain
point, the United States may have had to prioritize which litigations to pursue. See Docket No.
200 (Friedman Decl., Ex. C) (DOJ memo) (in Factor No. 4, i.e., noting that “the Department
should consider dismissing cases when necessary to protect the Department’s litigation
13
7

1

Furthermore, since the DOJ memo of January 2018 (discussing factors to consider

2

in whether to move to dismiss), the United States has moved to dismiss in only 36

3

cases. See Docket No. 241 (3d Crooke Decl. ¶ 4).

4
5

The Court thus concludes that the Campies have failed to satisfy their burden of showing
that dismissal is arbitrary, capricious, fraudulent, or illegal.
III.

6
7

CONCLUSION

The United States’ motion to dismiss is thereby granted. Although the main FCA claim

8

has now been dismissed, the Campies may still proceed with their remaining claims (including but

9

not limited to the retaliation claims) absent further order of the Court.

10

This order disposes of Docket No. 183.

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13
14

Dated: November 5, 2019

15
16
17

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

prerogatives”). However, the Court expresses no opinion on such.
14