United States of America et al v. St. Mark's Hospital et al

Filing 425

MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER - It is ORDERED that Defendants objection (Docket No. 385 ) is OVERRULED. Signed by Judge Ted Stewart on 2/25/2020. (las)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel.
GERALD POLUKOFF, M.D.,

MEMORANDUM DECISION
AND ORDER OVERRULING
OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE DECISION

Plaintiff/Relator,
v.
ST. MARK’S HOSPITAL;
INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE,
INC.; INTERMOUNTAIN MEDICAL
CENTER; SHERMAN SORENSEN,
M.D., and SORENSEN
CARDIOVASCULAR GROUP,

Case No. 2:16-CV-304-TS-EJF
District Judge Ted Stewart

Defendants.

This matter is before the Court on Defendants’ Objection of Magistrate Judge Order
Awarding Attorneys’ Fees and Costs to Relator dated December 31, 2019. 1 For the reasons
discussed below, the Court will overrule the objection.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A) and Rule 72(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
the Court reviews a Magistrate Judge’s orders on nondispositive matters under a clearly
erroneous or contrary to law standard. 2 “The clearly erroneous [or contrary to law] standard . . .
requires that the reviewing court affirm unless it ‘on the entire evidence is left with the definite
and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.’” 3

1

Docket No. 385.

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

3

Ocelot Oil Corp. v. Sparrow Indus., 847 F.2d 1458, 1464 (10th Cir. 1988) (quoting
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)).
1

The Court has carefully reviewed the Magistrate Judge’s Order, Defendants’ objection
thereto, the underlying briefing, and the relevant case law. Having done so, the Court cannot
conclude that the Magistrate Judge’s decision was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. It is
therefore
ORDERED that Defendants’ objection (Docket No. 385) is OVERRULED.
DATED this 25th day of February, 2020.
BY THE COURT:

____________________________________
Ted Stewart
United States District Judge

2