USA, et al. v. Mayo Foundation

Filing 88

ORDER DISMISSING CASE. IT IS ORDERED THAT:1.The first claim of Relators Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.2.The part of the second claim of Relators Second Amended Complaint as to which the United States d id not intervene is DISMISSED for failure to state a claim.3.The United States Complaint in Partial Intervention is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.4.All claims asserted on behalf of Relators for attorney fees under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) related to the C overed Conduct set forth in the Settlement Agreement are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.5.The Court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise regarding compliance with the Settlement Agreement.(Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Joan N. Ericksen on August 15, 2012. (slf)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
United States of America ex rel. David Ketroser,
Gary Latz, Robert Smith, and Jason Kennedy,
Plaintiffs,
v.

Civil No. 07-4676 (JNE/AJB)
ORDER

Mayo Foundation, Mayo Clinic, Mayo
Collaborative Services, Inc., Mayo Clinic-Saint
Mary’s Hospital, and Mayo Clinic-Methodist
Hospital,
Defendants.
On July 22, 2011, the Court dismissed the part of Relators’ Second Amended Complaint
as to which the United States had not intervened. On August 8, 2012, the parties stipulated to the
entry of an order dismissing with prejudice the United States’ Complaint in Partial Intervention
and dismissing Relators’ claims under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) for attorney fees related to the
Covered Conduct set forth in a Settlement Agreement. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1.

The first claim of Relators’ Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED for lack
of subject matter jurisdiction.

2.

The part of the second claim of Relators’ Second Amended Complaint as to
which the United States did not intervene is DISMISSED for failure to state a
claim.

3.

The United States’ Complaint in Partial Intervention is DISMISSED WITH
PREJUDICE.

4.

All claims asserted on behalf of Relators for attorney fees under 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730(d) related to the Covered Conduct set forth in the Settlement Agreement
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

1

5.

The Court retains jurisdiction over any disputes that may arise regarding
compliance with the Settlement Agreement.

LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Dated: August 15, 2012
s/ Joan N. Ericksen
JOAN N. ERICKSEN
United States District Judge

2