GUARDIOLA v. RENOWN HEALTH

Filing 95

ORDER DENYING Renown's # 48 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/13/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13
14
15

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ex rel.
CECILIA GUARDIOLA,

)
)
) 3:12-cv-00295-LRH-VPC
Plaintiff,
)
) ORDER
vs.
)
)
RENOWN HEALTH, RENOWN
)
REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and
)
RENOWN SOUTH MEADOWS MEDICAL )
CENTER,
)
)
Defendants.
)
)

16
17

Before the Court is Defendants Renown Health, Renown Regional Medical Center, and

18

Renown South Meadows Medical Center’s (collectively “Renown”) Motion to Dismiss for Lack

19

of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Doc. #48.1 Relator Cecilia Guardiola (“Guardiola”) filed an

20

Opposition (Doc. #58), to which Renown replied (Doc. #64).

21

I.

22

Factual and Procedural History
Renown Health, a Nevada nonprofit organization, is the umbrella corporation under

23

which related entities, including Renown Regional Medical Center and Renown South Meadows

24

Medical Center, provide acute health care services. Doc. #17 ¶11. Guardiola is a registered

25

nurse and compliance professional who was hired by Renown as Director of Clinical

26

Documentation on June 1, 2009. Id. ¶9. Guardiola’s role was to improve medical

27

documentation in order to support improved billing. Id. Guardiola was eventually promoted to

28
1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

Director of Clinical Compliance, but after her efforts at improving the billing system were

2

allegedly stifled by Renown, she resigned on January 15, 2012. Id.

3

On June 1, 2012, Guardiola filed a qui tam Complaint, and on January 10, 2014, filed an

4

Amended qui tam Complaint against Renown to recover damages resulting from Renown’s

5

knowing efforts to defraud government-funded health insurance programs, specifically

6

Medicare.2 Doc. #1; Doc. #17. Guardiola alleges that, from July 2007 through March 2011,

7

Renown knowingly submitted or, in reckless disregard of the truth, allowed to be submitted,

8

short-stay inpatient claims (“zero-day stays” and “one-day stays”) that should have been billed as

9

outpatient claims. Doc. #17 ¶¶29, 72-77. Guardiola further alleges that these improperly billed

10

claims were caused by (1) inadequate clinical documentation to support inpatient claims,

11

(2) antiquated computer systems that generated false claims, (3) internal processes designed to

12

improperly assign inpatient admission status, and (4) a lack of review to ensure appropriate

13

inpatient status assignments. Id. ¶30. Guardiola became aware of the alleged deficiencies in the

14

Renown billing system during the fourth quarter of 2009. Id. ¶33. Renown allegedly did nothing

15

to correct and/or prevent these problems. Id. Guardiola claims that she brought these problems

16

to the attention of Renown management personnel and none of them acted to correct and/or

17

prevent the Medicare claims from being improperly labeled and billed. Id. ¶¶49-71. Moreover,

18

Guardiola alleges that Renown management encouraged, directed, and facilitated the continued

19

fraudulent activity against Medicare. Id. ¶¶78-89. Finally, Guardiola alleges that Renown

20

management engaged in the aforementioned fraudulent activity in order to obtain higher

21

payments from Medicare. Id.

22

Specifically, Guardiola sets forth a list of 579 inpatient claims for “zero-day stays,” in

23

which the patient was admitted to and discharged from the hospital on the same calendar day. Id.

24

¶72. Additionally, Guardiola sets forth a list of 68 inpatient claims for “one-day stays,” the vast

25
26
27
28

2

Guardiola filed her initial Complaint on June 1, 2012. Doc. #1. A qui tam claim
pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)(1) allows an individual to bring a civil action in violation of 31
U.S.C. § 3729 (the “False Claims Act” or the “FCA”) on behalf of and in the name of the United
States Government. In qui tam actions, the individual bringing the claim on behalf of the
Government is considered the “Relator.”
2

1

majority of which she claims were for patients who were discharged within twenty-four hours of

2

admission to the hospital. Id. ¶¶74, 76. Guardiola alleges that each of those claims was for an

3

elective outpatient surgical procedure. Id. ¶75. Moreover, none of the procedures involved are

4

listed on the Medicare Inpatient Only List. Id. ¶76. Guardiola alleges further that many of the

5

patient files that accompany these short-stay claims are missing doctor’s admission orders

6

indicating that inpatient status is necessary, or any other medical documentation that would

7

justify inpatient admission. Id. In addition, Guardiola alleges that patient #34 on the “one-day

8

stay” list was placed, by physician order, in outpatient observation status and then later billed as

9

inpatient. Id. ¶77. In each of these cases, Guardiola alleges that Medicare paid an inflated

10

amount for the patient’s care as a result of Renown’s fraudulent inpatient assignments. Id. ¶¶76,

11

77. Guardiola alleges further that physicians connected to Renown were complicit in Renown’s

12

billing practices. Id. ¶¶57, 62-68. Additionally, Guardiola alleges that on numerous occasions

13

she reported the allegedly fraudulent billing practices to her superiors, including Renown

14

executives. Id. ¶¶46, 49-50, 56. Guardiola alleges that Renown senior management directed

15

physicians to carry on the fraudulent billing practices. Id. ¶¶80-82.

16

The improperly recorded “zero-day stays” and “one-day stays” were also reported in

17

audits conducted by Recovery Audit Contractors (“RAC”).3 Doc. #49 at 5. When RAC audits

18

revealed that a claim was improperly billed as an inpatient status, Renown received a letter

19

requesting repayment. Id. at 6. The RAC audit results were shared internally with the

20

compliance, billing, and quality departments, as well as at medical director, department, and

21

executive committee meetings. Doc. #50 ¶9. Results were also shared externally, as Renown

22

officers would inform Renown physicians and their staff, “including non-employee physicians

23

and their non-Renown staff, that a high percentage (sometimes over 90%) of RAC denials

24

stemmed from short-term inpatient stays.” Id.

25

///

26
3

27
28

An affidavit attached to Renown’s motion states that the RAC “program began with the 2003
Medicare Modernization Act, . . . [and] mandated by Congress and required by the Secretary of the
Department of Health and Human Services to institute . . . a program to identify and recoup improper
payments made on claims of health care services provided to Medicare beneficiaries.” Doc. #50 at 1-2.

3

1

On February 21, 2014, Renown filed a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of

2

Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Doc. #28.

3

While the 12(b)(6) Motion was still pending before the Court, Renown filed this Motion to

4

Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction. Doc. #48. The Court denied the 12(b)(6)

5

Motion to Dismiss on August 20, 2014. Doc. #87. The Court now considers the jurisdictional

6

question.

7

II.

8
9

Legal Standard
Federal courts are of limited jurisdiction; jurisdiction must be granted by the Constitution

or Congress before a federal district court may hear a case. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co.

10

of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). “It is presumed that a cause lies outside this limited

11

jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing the contrary rests upon the party asserting

12

jurisdiction.” Id. (citations omitted). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) provides for

13

dismissal if the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1).

14

Unlike motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), in a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

15

jurisdiction, the moving party may submit affidavits or other supporting evidence to the court.

16

Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. United States, 217 F.3d 770, 776 (9th Cir. 2000). A motion for lack

17

of subject matter jurisdiction is never waived, and can be raised at any time during the litigation.

18

Henderson ex rel. Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197, 1202 (2011).

19

The False Claims Act “prohibits submitting false or fraudulent claims for payment to the

20

United States, and authorizes qui tam suits, in which private parties bring civil actions in the

21

Government’s name.” Schindler Elevator Corp. v. U.S. ex rel. Kirk, 131 S. Ct. 1885, 1889

22

(2011). The FCA, as amended on March 23, 2010, states that:

23

26

The court shall dismiss an action or claim . . . if substantially the same allegations
or transactions as alleged in the claim were publicly disclosed (i) in a Federal
criminal, civil, or administrative hearing in which the Government or its agent is a
party; (ii) in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other Federal
report, hearing, audit, or investigation; or (iii) from the news media, unless the
action is brought by the Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an
original source of the information.

27

///

28

///

24
25

4

1

31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(A).4 The statute defines “original source” as:

2

an individual who either (i) prior to a public disclosure under subsection (e)(4)(a),
has voluntarily disclosed to the Government the information on which allegations
or transactions in a claim are based, or (2) who has knowledge that is independent
of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or transactions, and
who has voluntarily provided the information to the Government before filing an
action under this section.

3
4
5
6

31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B). A court need only consider whether relator was the “original source”

7

of the information disclosed if the court finds that the relator’s claims were not previously

8

publicly disclosed. U.S. ex rel. Meyer v. Horizon Health Corp., 565 F.3d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.

9

2009).

10

III.

Discussion

11

A.

12

“The presumption against retroactive legislation is deeply rooted” in the Supreme Court’s

Retroactivity

13

jurisprudence. Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 265 (1994). Courts cannot infer

14

retroactive application of a statute unless the statute evinces “clear congressional intent” for the

15

statute to apply retroactively. Id. at 283. Guardiola argues that the 2010 amendment to

16

§ 3730(e)(4) should apply because the 1986 public disclosure bar is merely jurisdictional, and

17

“does not affect Defendants’ substantive rights but merely provides for the forum where the case

18

will be heard.” Doc. #58 at 8. Renown states that in light of Guardiola’s stated preference, “the

19

Court does not need to decide the effect of the prior bar.” Doc. #64 at 8.5

20
21

Guardiola argues that this precedent against retroactivity absent clear congressional intent
does not apply to statutes that are merely jurisdictional—like § 3730(e)(4). Guardiola cites

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Prior to March 23, 2010, the FCA’s public disclosure bar, as amended in 1986, included
different language. See Schindler Elevator Corp., 131 S. Ct. at 1891 (“No court shall have jurisdiction
over an action under this section based upon the public disclosure of allegations or transactions in a
criminal, civil, or administrative hearing, in a congressional, administrative, or Government Accounting
Office report, hearing, audit, or investigation, or from the news media, unless the action is brought by the
Attorney General or the person bringing the action is an original source of the information.”). For the
reasons discussed in Part III.A of this Order, the Court adopts the 2010 amendment of the FCA.
5

Renown maintains, however, that if the Court decides to apply the prior public disclosure bar,
“the plaintiff’s claims based on conduct before March 23, 2010, must be dismissed.” Doc. #64 at 8.

5

1

Landgraf for the proposition that present law normally applies to jurisdictional statutes that

2

“speak to the power of the court rather than to the rights or obligations of the parties.” 511 U.S.

3

at 274 (internal quotation marks omitted). In Hughes Aircraft Co. v. U.S. ex rel. Schumer, the

4

Supreme Court stated that “[s]tatutes merely addressing which court shall have jurisdiction to

5

entertain a particular cause of action can fairly be said merely to regulate the secondary conduct

6

of litigation and not the underlying primary conduct of the parties.” 520 U.S. 939, 951 (1997).

7

“Such statutes affect only where a suit may be brought, not whether it may be brought at all.” Id.

8

(emphasis in original). Ultimately, however, the Court held that the 1986 amendment to § 3730

9

“does not merely allocate jurisdiction among forums. . . . it creates jurisdiction where none

10
11

previously existed” and therefore applied the pre-1986 amendment. Id. (emphasis in original).
Guardiola argues that Hughes does not preclude application of the 2010 amendment

12

because the Ninth Circuit held in U.S. ex rel. Anderson v. N. Telecom, Inc. that for purposes of

13

determining retroactivity, the relevant date is when the relator disclosed the fraudulent conduct,

14

not when the conduct occurred. 52 F.3d 810, 814 (9th Cir. 1995) (“Anderson I”). Guardiola

15

adds that the Ninth Circuit held in an amendment to Anderson that “Hughes left undisturbed this

16

court’s holding in Anderson I that the relevant conduct for purposes of determining the

17

appealability of the 1986 amendment is the disclosure of information to the government.” 141

18

F.3d 1179, *3 (9th Cir. 1998) (“Anderson II”). This distinction is important because “the 1986

19

amendment did not change the legal consequences of Northern Telecom’s conduct. If Northern

20

Telecom really did submit a fraudulent claim, it became liable and remained liable to the

21

government and to potential qui tam relators.” Anderson I, 52 F.3d at 814. Thus, the 1986

22

amendment applied because it merely “changed the consequences of [relator’s] conduct, not

23

Northern Telecom’s.” Id. Here, as in Anderson, the 2010 amendment had no substantive impact

24

on Renown’s liability, but only impacted Guardiola’s qui tam rights.

25

The Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit have both directly addressed the retroactive

26

application of the § 3730(e)(4) 2010 amendment. In Graham County Soil and Water

27

Conservation District v. U.S. ex. rel. Wilson, which involved a claim brought before adoption of

28

the 2010 amendment, the Court applied the 1986 amendment because the 2010 amendment
6

1

“makes no mention of retroactivity.” 559 U.S. 280, 283 n.1 (2010). The Court held in Schindler,

2

also filed before the 2010 amendment went into effect, that the amendments to § 3730(e)(4) “are

3

not applicable to pending cases.” 131 S. Ct. at 1886 n.1 (emphasis added). Similarly, the Ninth

4

Circuit noted in Berg v. Honeywell Int’l, Inc. that because the 2010 amendment did not address

5

retroactivity, it applied “the previous version of § 3730(e)(4), which was in effect at the time of

6

the filing of this action.” 502 Fed. Appx. 674, 676 n.1 (2012). Accordingly, Supreme Court and

7

Ninth Circuit precedent related to § 3730(e)(4) indicates that the Anderson analysis still applies,

8

and that the 2010 amendment can be applied to qui tam actions that were filed after adoption of

9

the 2010 amendment.

10

Guardiola filed the qui tam complaint at issue on June 1, 2012. Doc. #1. Additionally,

11

Guardiola disclosed her allegations of fraud to the government—the U.S. Attorney’s Office for

12

the District of Nevada—on May 2, 2012. Doc. #58 at 21. Accordingly, given that the relevant

13

disclosures and filing of this action occurred after the adoption of the 2010 amendment, the Court

14

finds that the 2010 amendment of § 3730(e)(4) applies.6

15

B.

16

Under the 2010 amendment of § 3730(e)(4), a court must dismiss the relator’s action if it

17

is based on “allegations or transactions” that were previously disclosed to the public in a federal

18

hearing, by the news media, or “in a congressional, Government Accountability Office, or other

19

Federal report, hearing, audit, or investigation.” § 3730(e)(4)(A) (emphasis added). A disclosure

20

constitutes a “public disclosure” if the disclosure “originated in one of the sources enumerated in

21

the statute” and if “the content of the disclosure consisted of the ‘allegations or transactions’

22

giving rise to the relator’s claim, as opposed to ‘mere information.’” A-1 Ambulance Serv. v.

23

California, 202 F.3d 1238, 1243 (9th Cir. 2000) (quoting United States ex rel. Hagood v.

24

Sonoma Cnty. Water Agency, 81 F.3d 1465, 1473 (9th Cir. 1996)). “[A] government employee

25

to whom information relevant to an FCA action is disclosed is not a member of the public under

Public Disclosure

26
27
28

6

Renown does not object to the application of the 2010 amendment. Doc. #64 at 8 (“[T]he Court
does not need to decide the effect of the prior bar.”). In fact, Renown argues that under the 2010 public
disclosure bar, “the case for dismissal is even stronger.” Doc. #64 at 2.

7

1

this section.” Seal 1 v. Seal A, 255 F.3d 1154, 1161 (9th Cir. 2001). Employees of an

2

organization named in a qui tam action also are not members of the public under this section:

3

“Because the employee has a strong economic incentive to protect the information from

4

outsiders, revelation of information to an employee does not trigger the potential for corrective

5

action presented by other forms of disclosure.” Id. (quoting U.S. ex rel. Schumer v. Hughes

6

Aircraft Co., 63 F.3d 1512, 1518 (9th Cir. 1995), overruled on other grounds by Hughes, 520

7

U.S. 939).

8

Renown argues that the public disclosure bar applies because prior to Guardiola’s

9

disclosures, the results of RAC audits were disclosed to multiple sources outside of government

10

and Renown employees. Doc. #64 at 3. Specifically, Renown states that these audits were

11

disclosed to 585 doctors connected to Renown. Id. at 4. Guardiola argues that the audit results

12

were marked “confidential” and “were never communicated to anyone other than Renown-

13

employed physicians . . . and Renown-employed staff.” Doc. #58 at 15.7 Therefore, Guardiola

14

argues, the audit results were not communicated to “outsiders,” and the public disclosure bar

15

should not apply. Id. Indeed, although the audit was allegedly made available to a large number

16

of doctors connected to Renown, such disclosure does not by itself make the audit public. See

17

Gonzales v. Planned Parenthood of L.A., 392 Fed. Appx. 524, 526-27 (9th Cir. 2010) (finding

18

that an audit of Planned Parenthood of San Diego was not made public “in any sense” although it

19

was sent by email to other Planned Parenthood offices throughout California); cf Seal 1, 255 F.3d

20

at 1162 (finding that disclosure of an investigation to one person, “an outsider,” made the

21

disclosure public because “he had significant incentive (and no disincentive) to use allegations of

22

fraud . . . to his own advantage”).

23

The Ninth Circuit has expressly declined to apply the public disclosure bar to an audit

24

that was disclosed only to individuals “with a strong economic incentive to protect the

25

information from outsiders.” Schumer, 63 F.3d at 1518. In Schumer, the court responded to a

26
27
28

7

Guardiola “disputes the fact that staff who were not employed by Renown were informed of the
audit results,” but states that “there is no different treatment for purposes of the public disclosure bar
[because] the staff should be considered to be included within the ‘private sphere.” Doc. #58 at 15 n.3.

8

1

Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision finding that the public disclosure bar applied when

2

audit information was disclosed to innocent employees. Id. (citing U.S. ex rel. Doe v. John Doe

3

Corp., 960 F.2d 318 (2d Cir. 1992)). The court found that “[u]nder a ‘practical, commonsense

4

interpretation’ of the jurisdictional provisions, information that was ‘disclosed in private’ has not

5

been publicly disclosed.” Id. (quoting U.S. ex rel. Stinson, Lyons, Gerlin & Bustamante v.

6

Prudential Ins. Co., 944 F.2d 1149, 1161 (3d Cir. 1991)). To support this finding, Schumer

7

considered Congress’ “stated purposes” for the 1986 amendment to the FCA. Id. (noting that the

8

amendments “were adopted in part to correct a restrictive interpretation of the Act which barred

9

qui tam suits whenever ‘the government already possessed the information’ upon which the

10

lawsuit was based”). Congress’ stated intent for the 2010 amendments to the FCA was similar:

11

“The Committee does not intend to bar suits solely because the Government already knew of the

12

fraud or could have learned of the fraud from information in the public domain.” S. Rep. 110-

13

507 (2008), at 22. As in Schumer, applying the public disclosure bar here would thwart the

14

stated purpose of the 2010 amendment and “drastically curtail[] the ability of insiders to bring

15

suit once the government becomes involved in the matter.” Schumer, 63 F.3d at 1519.

16

Guardiola has presented a strong argument that the doctors who had access to the RAC

17

audit were economically linked to Renown and were therefore not “outsiders” because they had

18

an “economic incentive to protect the information from outsiders.” See Seal I, 255 F.3d at1161.

19

Accordingly, the Court finds that Guardiola has met her burden to establish that the RAC audits

20

were not public disclosures under § 3730(e)(4).8

21

C.

22

If the Court determines that relator’s information was not publicly disclosed under

23

§ 3730(e)(4)(A), then the Court need not consider whether relator was an “original source” under

24

§ 3730(e)(4)(B). The Court notes, however, that even if the RAC audits were public disclosures,

25

jurisdiction would still be proper because Guardiola is an “original source” under

Original Source

26
27
28

8

Both parties discussed whether the information contained in the RAC audits constituted
“allegations or transactions.” Doc. #58 at 16-18; Doc. #64 at 6-8. Because the audits were not public
disclosures under the statute, it is not necessary for the Court to resolve this question.

9

1

§ 3730(e)(4)(B). A relator is an “original source” of publicly disclosed information if she “has

2

knowledge that is independent of and materially adds to the publicly disclosed allegations or

3

transactions, and [] has voluntarily provided the information to the government before filing an

4

action under” the FCA. 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(4)(B).

5

Under Ninth Circuit case law, Guardiola’s independent knowledge is sufficient to

6

establish that she was “an original source” under § 3730(e)(4)(B). In Hagood, the relator

7

reported to his superiors potentially illegal cost allocation that he discovered while he

8

volunteered for the defendant agency. 81 F.3d at 1476. The court held that the relator was an

9

original source because the public disclosure “was at least partially based on records resulting”

10

from his complaints. Id. In Wang v. FMC Corp., the court held that even though the information

11

underlying relator’s qui tam action had been publicly disclosed, he was not precluded by the FCA

12

statute’s jurisdictional bar because he had “direct and independent knowledge . . . of what he

13

thought was a fraud on the government.” 975 F.2d 1412, 1417 (9th Cir. 1992). The court added

14

that the fact that someone else publicly disclosed the alleged fraud first did not “rob [the relator]

15

of what he saw with his own eyes.” Id.

16

Guardiola’s First Amended Complaint describes in detail her “direct and independent

17

knowledge” of Renown’s alleged fraudulent billing practices. Guardiola was hired by Renown in

18

June 2012 as Director of Clinical Documentation to improve medical documentation and support

19

improved billing. Doc. #17 ¶9. She was soon promoted to Director of Clinical Compliance, and

20

she remained in that position until she resigned on January 15, 2012. Id. Soon after beginning at

21

Renown, Guardiola states that she learned from conferring with colleagues and reviewing patient

22

charts that poor documentation led Renown to submit short-stay inpatient claims that should

23

have been billed on an outpatient basis. Id. ¶29. Guardiola has provided information of nearly

24

650 zero-day and one-day stays that she alleges were improperly billed as inpatients. Id. ¶¶72-

25

79. Perhaps most importantly, Guardiola reported the improper billing practices to her superiors

26

on multiple occasions. In 2009, Guardiola told Renown CFO Mark Johnson that Renown was

27

billing Medicare for one-day inpatient stays that should have been outpatient stays. Id. ¶¶49; 56.

28

After Johnson resigned in November 2009, Guardiola reported “the systematic misbilling of
10

1

outpatient claims and inadequate Case Management” at Renown to the new Renown CFO Dawn

2

Ahner. Id. ¶¶50; 56. Guardiola then led a Patient Service Committee—comprised of case

3

management, physician, patient access, audit, and nursing departments—charged with the goal of

4

“ensuring the accuracy of patient status orders and billing.” Id. ¶51. Guardiola also states that

5

she voluntarily disclosed her knowledge of the information that she gathered to the U.S. Attorney

6

for the District of Nevada orally and by email before filing her complaint. Doc. #58 at 12.

7

Accordingly, even if the RAC audits constituted public disclosures under

8

§ 3730(e)(4)(A), the Court finds that Guardiola would not be precluded by the jurisdictional bar

9

because she has met her burden to show that she was an “original source”: (1) she has alleged

10

direct and independent knowledge of the information on which the allegations are based, and (2)

11

she voluntarily disclosed this information to the government before filing her original complaint.

12

See 31 U.S.C. § 3730(e)(2)(B); U.S. ex rel. Bajaras v. Northrop Corp., 5 F.3d 407, 411 (9th Cir.

13

1993).

14
15
16

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Renown’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. #48) is
DENIED.

17

IT IS SO ORDERED.

18

DATED this 13th day of October, 2014.

19
20

________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11