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)

Download PDF
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?