JERSEY STRONG PEDIATRICS, LLC v. WANAQUE CONVALESCENT CENTER et al

Filing 91

ORDER ADOPTING AS MODIFIED 89 Report and Recommendations, and denying defendants' 66 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Judge Katharine S. Hayden on 12/23/19. (cm, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, the STATE
OF NEW JERSEY, and the STATE OF NEW
YORK, ex rel. JERSEY STRONG PEDIATRICS,
LLC,
Civil No.: 14-6651 (KSH) (JAD)
Plaintiffs,
v.
WANAQUE CONVALESCENT CENTER,
WANAQUE OPERATING CO., L.P., and
SENIORS MANAGEMENT NORTH, INC.,

ORDER

Defendants.
THIS MATTER having come before the Court on the motion [D.E. 66] of defendants
Wanaque Convalescent Center, Wanaque Operating Co., L.P., and Seniors Management North,
Inc., for sanctions pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 for the filing of the amended complaint, and the
report and recommendation [D.E. 89] of Magistrate Judge Steven C. Mannion, recommending that
the motion for sanctions be denied; and
WHEREAS, the District Court may “accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the
findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge,” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed.
R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (“The district judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;
receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions.”); L. Civ.
R. 72.1(c)(2) (district judge “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge,” and “may consider the record developed before
the Magistrate Judge, making his or her own determination on the basis of that record.”); and
WHEREAS, no party has filed objections to the report and recommendation, and the time
for filing objections has expired; and

1

WHEREAS, this Court has reviewed the record and given “reasoned consideration” to the
report and recommendation, see EEOC v. Long Branch, 866 F.3d 93, 99-100 (3d Cir. 2017); and
WHEREAS, the report and recommendation properly concludes that the prior rulings in
this action, including the September 2017 ruling [D.E. 29, 30] on defendants’ motion to dismiss
the amended complaint and this Court’s 2019 ruling [D.E. 80, 81] that granted in part and denied
in part defendants’ motion for summary judgment, rejected the premise of defendants’ Rule 11
motion, which argues that relator’s amended complaint was entirely without factual or legal
support; and
WHEREAS, to the extent the report and recommendation may be read to imply that that
factual findings have been made or that relator’s allegations have been “prove[n]” [D.E. 89 at 7],
the Court clarifies that no findings of ultimate fact have been made and whether relator’s remaining
claims are ultimately proven remains for determination; the report and recommendation is
modified accordingly.
For the foregoing reasons, and for good cause shown,
IT IS on this 23rd day of December, 2019,
ORDERED that Judge Mannion’s report and recommendation [D.E. 89] is ADOPTED
AS MODIFIED; and it is further
ORDERED that defendants’ motion for sanctions [D.E. 66] is DENIED.

/s/ Katharine S. Hayden
Katharine S. Hayden, U.S.D.J.

2