Cretney-Tsosie, et al. v. Creekside Hospice II, LLC, et al.
Filing
200
ORDER re Settlement Agreement dismissing claims (see order for details). Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the exclusive jurisdiction and venue for any other dispute relating to the Settlement Agreement is the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Signed by Judge Andrew P. Gordon on 6/21/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)
Case 2:13-cv-00167-APG-PAL Document 198 Filed 06/20/17 Page 5 of 7
1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
JOANNE CRETNEY-TSOSIE; and
STATE OF NEVADA, ex rel. JOANNE
CRETNEY-TSOSIE; and JOANNE
CRETNEY-TSOSIE, individually.
Plaintiffs,
7
8
vs.
9
SKILLED HEALTHCARE GROUP,
INC., et al.,
10
Defendants.
11
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 2:13-cv-00167-APG-PAL
(Consolidated Case)
PROPOSED ORDER
12
13
14
15
16
Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the qui tam
provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1), the Parties filed a Joint Stipulation
of Dismissal. Upon consideration of the Stipulation, and the papers on file in this action,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that,
17
18
19
20
1.
Consistent with the terms of the June 9, 2017 Settlement Agreement executed by
the United States, Joanne Cretney-Tsosie (the “Relator”), and Genesis Healthcare, Inc. (the
“Settlement Agreement”), which is incorporated herein, all claims asserted on behalf of the
21
United States and Relator against Creekside concerning the Covered Conduct as defined in
22
23
24
Recital E of the Settlement Agreement are dismissed with prejudice; and
2.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, all other claims are
25
dismissed without prejudice to the United States and with prejudice as to the Relator, except for
26
the following: (a) Relator’s claims for reasonable expenses necessarily incurred and reasonable
27
attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d) and any claims or defenses by
28
5
Case 2:13-cv-00167-APG-PAL Document 198 Filed 06/20/17 Page 6 of 7
1
Creekside related to any petition for attorney’s fees or costs filed in connection with the action
2
referenced in Paragraph B.1 of the Settlement Agreement; and (b) Relator’s claim for the
3
relator’s share (i.e. the percentage of the settlement amount any qualified relators are entitled to
4
receive under 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)).
5
6
3.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court of
7
Nevada retains jurisdiction over (a) Relator’s claim for reasonable expenses necessarily incurred
8
and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730 and any claims or
9
10
defenses by Creekside related to any petition for attorney’s fees or costs filed in connection with
the action referenced in Paragraph B.1 of the Settlement Agreement; and (b) the determination
11
12
13
of relator’s share under 31 U.S.C. § 3730. Relator Cretney-Tsosie and Creekside will file a
Motion to Stay the time for Relator Cretney-Tsosie to file any petition for attorneys’ fees and
14
costs under Local Rule 54-14 until the United States Court Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
15
resolves Relator Veneta Lepera’s appeal of this Court’s order of March 30, 2017. (Dkt. 189).
16
Following final resolution of the appeal, Relator and Creekside will notify the Court of the
17
appeal disposition and, if applicable, a proposed schedule for Relator to file any petition for
18
attorney’s fees under Local Rule 54-14.
19
20
4.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the exclusive jurisdiction
21
and venue for any other dispute relating to the Settlement Agreement is the United States
22
District Court for the Northern District of California.
23
24
25
26
27
28
IT IS SO ORDERED.
6/21/2017
Dated: ________________
________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Andrew P. Gordon, UNITED STATES DISTRICT
JUDGE
6
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?