United States of America et al v. Bluewave Healthcare Consultants Inc et al
ORDER AND OPINION GRANTING Relators' Rule 42(b) 596 , 615 Motions to Bifurcate. AND IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Richard M Gergel on 8/29/2017.(sshe, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
United States of America, et al.,
ex rel. Scarlett Lutz, et al. ,
Berkeley Heartlab, Inc. , et al. ,
Civil Action No . 9:14-cv-00230-RMG
(Consolidated with 9: 11-cv-1593-RMG and
ORDER and OPINION
This matter is before the Court on Relators Scarlett Lutz and Kayla Webster's motion,
made pursuant to Rule 42(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to separate the trials of the
federal claims submitted pursuant to the False Claims Act and state law claims asserted by the
Relators. (Dkt. No. 596.) Under this motion, the federal claims would be tried first and, if
necessary, a second trial before a different jury would be held at a later date concerning the
Relators ' state law claims. All Defendants and the United States have consented to Lutz and
Webster' s motion. (Id. at 2.)
Relator Chris Riedel has filed a similar motion pursuant to Rule 42(b). (Dkt. No. 615.)
Riedel ' s state law allegations primarily involve the payment of speaker fees to physicians. (Dkt.
No. 615-1 at 2.) The United States and LaTonya Mallory have consented to Riedel's motion.
(Dkt. No. 615 at 2.) BlueWave Health Care Consultants, Inc. is the only party to Riedel's nonintervened state law claims that did not consent to his motion. (Dkt. No. 615-1at2.)
For the reasons set forth below, the Relators ' motions under Rule 42(b) (Dkt. Nos. 596,
615) are granted. The Court will try the False Claims Act claims in the trial to commence on
September 18, 2017. The Relators' state law claims will be tried at a later date, if necessary,
before a different jury.
"For convenience, to avoid prejudice, or to expedite and economize, the court may order
a separate trial of one or more separate issues, claims, crossclaims, counterclaims, or third-party
claims." Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(b); see also Snoznik v. Jeld-Wen, Inc., 2009 WL 929081 , at *1
(W.D.N.C. Apr. 2, 2009) (courts adjudicating a Rule 42(b) motion should consider factors such
as convenience, avoidance of prejudice, expediency, and economy). Courts have broad discretion
in deciding whether to grant a Rule 42(b) motion. Beasley v. Kelly, 2010 WL 3221848, at *3 (D.
Md. Aug. 13, 2010).
The Court finds that granting the Rule 42(b) motions will expedite and economize the
suit; maximize convenience for the Court, witnesses, the jury, and the parties; and minimize
prejudice to Defendants by reducing their exposure to reasonable fees, costs and expenses of
Relators' counsel pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(d)(l).
For the reasons set forth above, the Relators ' Rule 42(b) motions (Dkt. Nos. 596, 615) are
AND IT IS SO ORDERED.
Richard Mar Gergel
United States District Court Judge
Charleston, South Carolina
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?