Sharpe et al v. Americare Ambulance

Filing 69

ORDER: The United States' motion to intervene (Doc. # 62 ) is GRANTED. The United States' complaint in intervention is due by August 2, 2017. Signed by Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington on 7/13/2017. (DRW)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TAMPA DIVISION
ERNEST SHARPE ex rel. UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
v.

Case No. 8:13-cv-1171-T-33AEP

AMERICARE AMBULANCE,
Defendant.
_____________________________/
ORDER
This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of
the United States’ motion to intervene (Doc. # 62), filed on
June 30, 2017. Defendant Americare Ambulance filed a response
in opposition on July 13, 2017. (Doc. # 68). For the reasons
below, the Motion is granted.
Discussion
This qui tam action was instituted on May 1, 2013. (Doc.
# 1). After a number of continuances, the United States filed
a notice informing the Court it was not intervening “in this
case at this time” on January 5, 2017. (Doc. # 26). The United
States also indicated in its January 5, 2017, notice that it
would continue its investigation to determine whether it

would intervene. (Id. at 1). The Court lifted the seal on the
Relator’s Complaint on January 10, 2017. (Doc. # 27).
The Relator proceeded and served Americare on April 5,
2017. (Doc. ## 34, 37). The Court subsequently held its case
management hearing on May 3, 2017, and entered its Case
Management and Scheduling Order that same day. (Doc. ## 47,
49). After the Case Management and Scheduling Order was
entered, Americare filed a motion to dismiss the Relator’s
Complaint on May 26, 2017. (Doc. # 55). While that motion to
dismiss

was

still

pending,

the

United

States

filed

the

currently pending motion to intervene on June 30, 2017. (Doc.
# 62). Three days later, the Court granted in part and denied
in part Americare’s motion to dismiss. (Doc. # 64). Relator’s
amended complaint is currently due by August 2, 2017. (Id.).
“When a person proceeds with the action,” as is the case
here, “the court, without limiting the status and rights of
the person initiating the action, may nevertheless permit the
Government to intervene at a later date upon a showing of
good cause.” 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3). Section 3730(c)(3) does
not define what constitutes good cause. Three courts have
found § 3730(c)(3)’s good-cause requirement to be satisfied
where, as here, the relator consents to intervention. See,
e.g., Thomas v. Sarasota Pain Assocs., P.A., 8:11-cv-583-T-

2 

23TBM, Doc. # 27 (M.D. Fla. Oct. 22, 2012) (unpublished);
Baklid-Kunz v. Halifax Hosp. Med. Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-1002,
2011 WL 4480846, at 1 (M.D. Fla. Sept. 27, 2011); Stone v.
Rockwell Int’l Corp., 950 F. Supp. 1046, 1049 (D. Colo. 1996).
But, at least one court has found Stone’s reading of §
3730(c)(3)’s good-cause requirement to be too broad. Drennen
v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc., No. 09-10179-GAO, 2017
WL 1217118, at *5 n.2 (D. Mass. Mar. 31, 2017) (reasoning the
argument that good cause is assured where the relator assents
to intervention “would virtually eliminate the ‘good cause’
requirement since a relator may assent for any reason or no
reason at all.”). In other contexts, the Eleventh Circuit has
noted that good cause “is a mutable standard, varying from
situation to situation. It is also a liberal one—but not so
elastic

as

to

be

devoid

of

substance.”

Compania

Interamericana Export-Import, S.A. v. Compania Dominicana de
Aviacion, 88 F.3d 948, 951 (11th Cir. 1996) (citation and
internal quotation marks omitted). So while there is no
“precise formula,” Id., for determining if good cause exists,
the Court may consider “whether intervention would be unduly
prejudicial to the defendant or would cause undue delay.”
Drennen, 2017 WL 1217118, at *9 (citations omitted); see also
Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(3).

3 

Under the Case Management and Scheduling Order, the
parties have until June 29, 2018, to conduct discovery. (Doc.
# 47 at 1). Thus, almost a full year of discovery remains.
Given the generous time period for discovery, intervention at
this relatively early stage of the proceeding will not cause
undue delay or prejudice. Furthermore, the Court grants the
United States’ motion to intervene on the proviso that the
dispositive motion and trial deadlines will not be moved.
Because the timeframe for litigation remains the same, again,
the Court determines there will be no undue delay.
As for undue prejudice, Americare asserts it will be
unduly prejudice because it is “currently litigating many of
these same issues with CMS in an Administrative Law proceeding
that has been ongoing. So . . ., it is in significant part
duplicative and redundant of federal litigation elsewhere.”
(Doc. # 68 at 3). Whatever degree of duplication may exist
because of this qui tam action and the ongoing administrative
proceedings,

it

is

not

weighty

enough

to

create

undue

prejudice. To be sure, this qui tam action would persist even
if the United States’ motion to intervene were denied.
Having found that good cause exists, the United States’
motion to intervene is granted. Although the United States
requests to have until August 29, 2017, to file its complaint

4 

in intervention (Doc. # 62), given the protracted period the
United States has had to investigate this action, the Court
finds that a filing deadline of August 2, 2017, appropriately
balances the competing interests while also ensuring no undue
delay occurs in the prosecution of the action. In light of
the United States’ intervention, the Relator is relieved of
his obligation to file an amended complaint. § 3730(c)(1).
Finally,

the

Court

emphasizes

that

the

dispositive

motion and trial deadlines will not be moved, under any
circumstances or for any reason, as a consequence of the
United States’ intervention. The United States has had more
than four years to make its decision, which has understandably
produced frustration on Americare’s part. The Court will not
tolerate any further delay, nor will it indulge the parties
in extension after extension. This Court is prepared to move
forward as expeditiously as it is able to.

The parties are

thus placed on notice that the Court expects the parties to
work with each other, cooperate with each other, and only
seek

continuances

or

extensions

of

necessary.
Accordingly, it is
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED:

5 

time

when

absolutely

(1)

The United States’ motion to intervene (Doc. # 62) is
GRANTED.

(2)

The United States’ complaint in intervention is due by
August 2, 2017.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers in Tampa, Florida, this

13th day of July, 2017.

6