United States of America, et al. v. MR Homecare of Cleveland, OH, Inc., et al.

Filing 29

Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 9/16/2021. For the reasons as set forth in this order, the Defendants motion to stay these proceedings is DENIED. Defendant Rokhman is ORDERED to answer the complaint by September 24, 2021.(Related Doc # 24 25 )(S,KM)

Case: 1:20-cv-01265-JG Doc #: 29 Filed: 09/16/21 1 of 3. PageID #: 140

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Ex.rel. Latanya Briggs Freeman
Plaintiff,
v.
MR HOMECARE OF
CLEVELAND, OH INC., et. al.,
Defendants.

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CASE NO. 1:20-cv-01265
OPINION & ORDER
[Resolving Docs. 24, 25,& 28]

JAMES S. GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE:
Defendants Bella Rokhman, MR Homecare, Inc., Shalom Adult Health Care, LLC,
d/b/a Our Home Adult Health Center and Samantha Belfer, move for the Court to stay the
proceedings in this civil action brought by Relator Latanya Briggs Freeman. Defendants
contend that a pending federal criminal investigation limits their ability to defend
themselves in this case. For the following reasons, Defendants’ motion is DENIED.
Defendant Rokhman is ORDERED to answer the complaint by September 24, 2021.
I.

Background
Relator initiated this civil action on June 9, 2020, which the Court ordered unsealed

on May 12, 2021. 1 In the complaint, Relator alleges that Defendants committed various types
of health care fraud. 2 Since then, Defendants have developed reason to believe that they are
the subject of a federal criminal investigation for fraud. 3

1

Doc. 12.
Doc. 1.
3
Doc. 24.
2

Case: 1:20-cv-01265-JG Doc #: 29 Filed: 09/16/21 2 of 3. PageID #: 141
Case No.
GWIN, J.
II.

Analysis
As the Sixth Circuit has established: “It is clear that ‘nothing in the Constitution

requires a civil action to be stayed in the face of a pending or impending criminal
indictment,’” and that “’there is no requirement that a civil proceeding be stayed pending
the outcome of criminal proceedings[.]’” 4 In particular, there are six factors that the Sixth
Circuit considers in assessing whether a stay is warranted. 5 They are:
1) [T]he extent to which the issues in the criminal case overlap with those
presented in the civil case; 2) the status of the case, including whether the
defendants have been indicted; 3) the private interests of the plaintiffs in
proceeding expeditiously weighed against the prejudice to plaintiffs caused
by the delay; 4) the private interests of and burden on the defendants; 5) the
interests of the courts; and 6) the public interest. 6
Additionally, courts consider “‘the extent to which the defendant's fifth amendment rights
are implicated,’” and whether the stay will “’further the interest in economical use of
judicial time and resources.’” 7
Of the numbered factors from the Sixth Circuit, only the fourth weighs in favor of
the Defendants. The others either support neither party or favor the denial of the stay.
If a criminal case has not yet been filed, then the first favor does not weigh in the
Defendants’ favor. 8 This is the case here since no criminal case has been filed to date. For
similar reasons, the second factor also does not favor Defendants in this case as “courts
generally do not stay proceedings in the absence of an indictment.” 9

4

F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide, Inc., 767 F.3d 611, 627 (6th Cir. 2014) (citations

omitted).

Id.
Id.
7
Id. at 627–28.
8
Id. at 628.
9
Id.
5
6

-2-

Case: 1:20-cv-01265-JG Doc #: 29 Filed: 09/16/21 3 of 3. PageID #: 142
Case No.
GWIN, J.
The third factor weighs in favor of denying the motion. The Relator in this case has
an even stronger “personal interest” in moving forward with the civil case than the
government plaintiff did in F.T.C. v. E.M.A. Nationwide. 10
The fourth factor weighs in favor of Defendants. Although the exact parameters of
the government’s investigation are unknown, that investigation may overlap with the civil
action.
The fifth and sixth factors do not weigh strongly in either direction. The indictment
has not yet issued and there is no evidence indicating when that might occur. The Court
also believes that allowing for both actions to proceed simultaneously allows for the most
efficient outcome.
Considering the factors together, the Court finds that the stay is unwarranted.
III.

Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Defendants’ motion to stay these proceedings is

DENIED. Defendant Rokhman is ORDERED to answer the complaint by September 24,
2021.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 16, 2021

10

s/

James S. Gwin

JAMES S. GWIN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Id.
-3-