Omni Healthcare Inc. et al v. Health First, Inc. et al
Filing
356
ORDER granting in part and denying in part 354 Motion for Order Preventing Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Pending Outcome of Qui Tam Action Dispute or Alternatively, to Set Aside Settlement. Signed by Judge Roy B. Dalton, Jr. on 12/21/2016. (VMF)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
ORLANDO DIVISION
OMNI HEALTHCARE INC.;
INTERVENTIONAL SPINE INSTITUTE
OF FLORIDA; CRAIG DELIGDISH;
C. HAMILTON BOONE, PA; BRIAN
DOWDELL; RICHARD GAYLES; STAN
GOLOVAC; LANCE GRENEVICKI;
ALEKSANDER KOMAR; SCOTT
SEMINER; INSTITUTE OF FACIAL
SURGERY INC.; THE PAIN INSTITUTE
INC.; and PHYSICIAN ASSISTANT
SERVICES OF FLORIDA, LLC,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Case No. 6:13-cv-1509-Orl-37DCI
HEALTH FIRST, INC.; HOLMES
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST PHYSICIANS, INC.;
HEALTH FIRST HEALTH PLANS, INC.;
MICHAEL D. MEANS; and JERRY
SENNE,
Defendants.
ORDER
This cause is before the Court on Defendants’ Emergency Motion for Order
Preventing Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Pending Outcome of Qui Tam Action
Dispute or[,] Alternatively, to Set Aside Settlement Agreement (Doc. 354), filed
December 15, 2016.
The instant Motion arises from post-settlement disputes in two related actions:
(1) an antitrust suit—Omni Healthcare Inc. v. Health First, Inc., 6:13-cv-1509-Orl-37DCI
(“Antitrust Action”); and (2) a qui tam suit brought pursuant to the federal False Claims
Act and the Florida False Claims Act—United States ex rel. Doe v. Health First, Inc.,
6:14-cv-501-Orl-37DCI (“Qui Tam Action”).
On the morning of August 16, 2016—the second day of trial in the Antitrust
Action—the parties announced their settlement in open court. (See Antitrust Action,
Doc. 326.) Three days thereafter, the parties to the Qui Tam Action filed a notice
indicating that they too had reached a settlement. 1 (Qui Tam Action, Doc. 120.) Since that
time, numerous disputes have arisen amongst parties to both actions regarding the
execution of their respective settlement agreements and the distribution of the settlement
proceeds.
With respect to the disputes in the Antitrust Action, the Court held a hearing on
December 1, 2016, and ordered that Defendants transfer the settlement proceeds to an
agreed escrow agent pending its determination as to the allocation of such proceeds.
(See Antitrust Action, Docs. 348, 350.) In the present Motion, the Antitrust Defendants
request that the Court also order that these proceeds be held in escrow until the resolution
of the parties’ settlement disputes in the Qui Tam Action. (Id., Doc. 354.) Upon
consideration, the Court finds that this limited request is due to be granted. 2 Due to the
emergency nature of the Motion, the Court elects not to await Plaintiffs’ response.
Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that Defendants’
Emergency Motion for Order Preventing Distribution of Settlement Proceeds Pending
Outcome of Qui Tam Action Dispute or[,] Alternatively, to Set Aside Settlement
1
This “notice,” however, was filed in the form of a letter, in clear violation of Local
Rule 3.01(f).
2 The Motion also contains additional requests related to disputes in the Qui Tam
Action, which the Court will take up in that action.
2
Agreement (Doc. 354) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART.
1.
To the extent that Defendants request an Order preventing distribution of
the Antitrust Action settlement proceeds pending the resolution of disputes
in the Qui Tam Action, the Motion is GRANTED.
2.
In all other respects, the Motion is DENIED.
3.
The escrow agent at the location where the pertinent settlement proceeds
have been deposited is DIRECTED to hold such funds in escrow until
further Order of the Court. The escrow agent is PROHIBITED from
distributing such proceeds until the Court orders otherwise.
4.
Plaintiffs are DIRECTED to serve a copy of this Order on the escrow agent.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers in Orlando, Florida, on December 21, 2016.
Copies:
Counsel of Record
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?