VEZEAU, ET AL v. PFIZER, INC.
MEMORANDUM ORDER THAT DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO CERTIFY QUESTIONS FOR INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL (DOC. NO. 126 ), IS GRANTED AS OUTLINED HEREIN. DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR STAY OF THESE PROCEEDINGS IS GRANTED. ALL PROCEEDINGS SHALL BE STAYED PENDING RESOLUTION OF THE APPEAL. THE CLERK OF COURT IS DIRECTED TO PLACE THIS CASE IN CIVIL SUSPENSE. SIGNED BY HONORABLE R. BARCLAY SURRICK ON 6/22/2017. 6/22/2017 ENTERED AND COPIES FAXED AND MAILED BY CHAMBERS; E-MAILED.(amas)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al.,
ex rel. CATHERINE A. BROWN and
BERNARD G. VEZEAU
AND NOW, this
, 2017, upon consideration of
Defendant’s Motion to Certify Questions for Interlocutory Review and For Stay (ECF No. 126),
and all documents submitted in support thereof and in opposition thereto, it is ORDERED as
Defendant’s Motion to Certify Questions for interlocutory appeal is GRANTED.
The Court certifies the following questions for interlocutory appeal pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1292(b):
Is it possible for allegations to satisfy the FCA’s demanding
materiality requirement when the government learned about the
allegations more than a decade ago, conducted a multi-year investigation,
and continues to pay the relevant claims?
If a relator “brings a related action” in violation of the FCA’s firstto-file rule, can the relator cure this defect by merely filing an amended
complaint after the earlier-filed lawsuit is no longer “pending?”
Does 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(t)(2)(B) apply to Vfend even though it is
not “used in any anticancer chemotherapeutic regimen?”
Defendant’s Motion for Stay of these proceedings is GRANTED. All
proceedings shall be stayed pending resolution of the appeal. The Clerk of
Court is directed to place this case in civil suspense.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
BY THE COURT:
R. BARCLAY SURRICK, J.
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?