Wall v. Baxter International, Inc. et al
Filing
75
ORDER OF DISMISSAL AS TO CLAIMS OF THE UNITED STATES AND RELATOR WITH PREJUDICE and WITHOUT PREJUDICE. (See Order for details.)Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 5/9/2017. (khm)
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00042-MR-DLH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and
The STATES OF CALIFORNIA,
COLORADO, CONNECTICUT,
GEORGIA, HAWAII, ILLINOIS, IOWA,
MARYLAND, MASSACHUSETTS,
NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
VIRGINIA, and WASHINGTON, ex rel.
WARREN CHRISTOPHER WALL,
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
)
BAXTER INTERNATIONAL, INC. and )
BAXTER HEALTHCARE
)
CORPORATION,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________ )
ORDER OF DISMISSAL
AS TO CLAIMS OF THE
UNITED STATES AND
RELATOR
THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Stipulation of Dismissal of
the United States and Relator [Doc. 67].
Pursuant to Rule 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the qui
tam provisions of the False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3730(b)(1), et seq., the
United States and Relator Warren Christopher Wall (together, the “Parties”)
filed a Stipulation of Dismissal as to all claims asserted in the above-
captioned Civil Action. The Court held a status conference regarding the
Parties’ dismissal on April 18, 2017. At that time, the Parties presented the
Court with a copy of their executed Settlement Agreement.
An action brought under the False Claims Act “may be dismissed only
if the court and the Attorney General give written consent to the dismissal
and their reasons for consenting.” United States ex re. Michaels v. Agape
Senior Cmty., Inc., 848 F.3d 330, 336-37 (4th Cir. 2017) (quoting 31 U.S.C.
§ 3730(b)(1)). Upon consideration of the parties’ Settlement Agreement, the
Stipulation of Dismissal, and the arguments of counsel, the Court consents
to the dismissal of this Civil Action.
In Paragraph D of the parties’ Settlement Agreement [Doc. 73 at 2],
the United States contends that it has certain civil claims related to the
Defendants’ sale of products to the Veterans’ Administration (“VA”) under
certain contracts (“the VA contracts”). Specifically, the United States alleges
that the products sold pursuant to the VA contracts were produced by the
Defendants in violation of federal regulations and that, as a result, the
Defendants caused to be submitted false claims to the VA in violation of the
False Claims Act. [Id.].
Based on the allegations of the United States, the Court finds that the
Defendant had potential exposure for liability in this case well in excess of
2
the settlement sum. On the other hand, the Defendant also had a potentially
strong defenses -- based on the recent decision of the United States
Supreme Court in Universal Health Services, Inc. v. United States, 136 S.
Ct. 1989 (2016) and Fourth Circuit precedent, see United States ex rel.
Rostholder v. Omnicare, Inc., 745 F. 3d 694 (4th Cir. 2014) -- that there was
no actual product impact that resulted from the Defendant’s incorrect
manufacturing procedures or that, if there was such impact, it was not
material. The Court finds that the Parties’ settlement is fair and reasonable
in light of all these circumstances.
The parties also seek dismissal without prejudice of any other claims
of the United States within the purview of the Relator’s Complaint. Such
dismissal is reasonable because to date the United States has not identified
any basis to pursue such claims and has chosen not to intervene in the
pursuit of those claims. Further, counsel for the United States represents to
the Court that it has no current intention to pursue such claims in the future.
The Relator agrees to dismiss his claims in this action with prejudice,
and there is no other person apparent from the record who would constitute
an original source and who could serve as a relator in this case.
3
Finally, the Court finds that the Parties’ negotiation of this settlement is
reasonably expected to resolve all aspects of this matter with finality, with
the exception of the Relator’s claim for attorneys’ fees.
For all of these reasons, the Court finds that the Parties’ settlement is
fair and reasonable, and therefore the Court consents to the dismissal of this
action as proposed by the Parties.
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that:
1.
Consistent with the terms of the Settlement Agreement among
the United States, Baxter International, Inc., Baxter Healthcare Corporation
(Baxter),
and
Relator
Warren
Christopher
Wall
(the
“Settlement
Agreement”), all claims asserted in Case No. 1:13-cv-00042-MR-DLH for the
Covered Conduct as described in Paragraph D of the Settlement Agreement
are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the United States and Relator.
2.
Any remaining claims asserted in the Civil Action shall be
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE as to the Relator and WITHOUT
PREJUDICE as to the United States.
3.
The Court shall retain jurisdiction to resolve issues relating to
Relator’s claim for attorneys’ fees, expenses, and costs against Baxter under
31 U.S.C. § 3730(d).
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Signed: May 9, 2017
5
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?