Citizens for Consume, et al v. Abbott Laboratories,, et al

Filing 8301

Chief Judge Patti B. Saris: ORDER entered GRANTING 8300 Motion for Entry of Judgment under Rule 54(b). "ORDER:...Relators' motion (Doc. no. 231, 1:08-cv-11200) is ALLOWED and the Court enters final judgment in favor of Baxter on the False Claims Act claims." (LaFlamme, Jennifer)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

)
)
)
)
)
)
THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO:
)
)
UNITED STATES ex rel. LINNETTE )
SUN and GREG HAMILTON, RELATORS )
v. BAXTER HEALTHCARE
)
CORPORATION
)
)

IN RE PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY
AVERAGE WHOLESALE PRICE
LITIGATION

MDL NO. 1456
CIVIL ACTION NO. 01-12257-PBS
SUBCATEGORY NO. 08-11200-PBS

ORDER
August 16, 2013
SARIS, C.J.
Relators Linnette Sun and Greg Hamilton move the court,
pursuant to Fed R. Civ. P. 54(b), for entry of partial final
judgment as to the relators’ claims under the False Claims Act.
Defendant Baxter Healthcare Corporation does not oppose the
motion.

On May 31, 2013, the Court held that the first-to-file

rule barred relators’ False Claims Act claims.

See In re Pharm.

Indus. Average Wholesale Price Litig., 2013 WL 2420912 (D. Mass.
May 31, 2013).

However, that order is not final and appealable,

because Sun still has employment claims pending against Baxter
under California law.
1

Rule 54(b) states: “When an action presents more than one
claim for relief . . . the court may direct entry of a final
judgment as to one or more, but fewer than all, claims . . . only
if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason
for delay.”

“When contemplating Rule 54(b) certification, a

trial court first must ensure that the ruling underlying the
proposed judgment is final.”
(1st Cir. 2012).

Nystedt v. Nigro, 700 F.3d 25, 29

“To qualify as final, a ruling must dispose . .

. of some discrete substantive claim or set of claims against the
defendants generally.”

Id. (internal quotations omitted).

The Court’s May 31, 2013 order is final because it disposed
entirely of the False Claims Act claims against Baxter.

There is

no just reason for delay because the remaining employment claims
under California law are legally and factually distinct from the
False Claims Act claims, and the issues underlying the Court’s
order are otherwise ripe for appeal.

See U.S. ex rel. Wilson v.

Bristol-Myers Squibb, Inc., 2013 WL 3327317, *7-8 (D. Mass. June
27, 2013) (allowing partial final judgment on False Claims Act
claims under Rule 54(b) where remaining employment claims were

2

actually and legally distinct).

Relators’ motion (Doc. No. 231,

1:08-cv-11200) is ALLOWED and the Court enters final judgment in
favor of Baxter on the False Claims Act claims.

/s/ PATTI B. SARIS
PATTI B. SARIS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

3