GUARDIOLA v. RENOWN HEALTH

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: February 14, 2020
• Docket: 3:12-cv-00295
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8 * * * 9 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, ex rel. Case No. 3:12-cv-00295-LRH-CLB CECILIA GUARDIOLA, 10 ORDER Plaintiff/ Relator, 11 v. 12 RENOWN HEALTH, RENOWN 13 REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, and RENOWN SOUTH MEADOWS MEDICAL 14 CENTER,

15 Defendants.

16 17 Currently pending before the court is Cecilia Guardiola’s motion to award her a share of 18 the proceeds recovered by the United States from Renown Health, Renown Regional Medical 19 Center, and Renown South Meadows Medical Center (collectively “Renown”). ECF No. 231. The 20 court’s docket provides that the United States of America (“the Government”) filed its response to 21 this motion by amicus, however, nothing within the Government’s response articulates this status. 22 See ECF No. 232. Additionally, when this case was before the Ninth Circuit on appeal, the 23 Government motioned the Court to intervene, but the Court did not rule on this motion before 24 Guardiola voluntarily dismissed the appeal and the case returned to this court. See United States 25 of America ex rel. Cecilia Guardiola v. Renown Health and United States of America (Intervenor), 26 No. 16-17205 (9th Cir. 2017). Because the Government’s response was docketed as amicus, but 27 appeared to be filed as an intervenor, the court summoned the Government to clarify its position 1 intervention motion before the Ninth Circuit as its unopposed motion to intervene in this matter 2 before the court. ECF No. 237. Good cause appearing, the court grants the Government’s motion 3 to intervene. 4 Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. § 3730(c)(3), “[w]hen a person proceeds with the action, the court, 5 without limiting the status and rights of the person initiating the action, may nevertheless permit 6 the Government to intervene at a later date upon a showing of good cause.” Therefore, to determine 7 if the Government may intervene, the court looks to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a), and 8 applies a four-part test:

9 (1) the application for intervention must be timely; (2) the applicant must have a “significantly protectable” interest relating to the property or transaction that is the 10 subject of the action; (3) the applicant must be so situated that the disposition of the action may, as a practical matter, impair or impede the applicant’s ability to protect 11 that interest; and (4) the applicant’s interest must not be adequately represented by the existing parties in the lawsuit. 12 13 Southwest Ctr. For Biological Diversity v. Berg, 268 F.3d 810, 817 (9th Cir. 2001). Rule 24(a) is 14 liberally construed in favor of potential intervenors. Id. at 818. 15 First, at initial glance it does not appear that the Government’s motion to intervene, 16 following full briefing on Guardiola’s motion, at this late stage of the litigation is timely. But, the 17 court looks at three criteria to determine if the motion was timely: “(1) the stage of the proceedings; 18 (2) whether the parties would be prejudiced; and (3) the reason for any delay in moving to 19 intervene.” Northwest Forest Res. Council v. Glickman, 82 F.3d 825, 836 (9th Cir. 1996). While 20 the court recognizes that this is the end of this litigation, the court weighs heavily that the motion 21 is unopposed and that the motion is not for any reason to, or will, delay the suit. Additionally, 22 Guardiola was aware of and did not oppose the Government’s intervention in this action when it 23 was before the Ninth Circuit more than 3 years ago. 24 Second, the Government has a significant and protectable interest because if the court 25 grants Guardiola’s motion, she will be awarded funds from the United States Treasury. See Green 26 v. United States, 996 F.2d 973, 976 (9th Cir. 1993) (“[W]hether an applicant for intervention 27 demonstrates sufficient interest in an action is a practical, threshold inquiry. No specific legal or 1 || Government’s ability to protect that interest will be impeded—the Government would be forced 2 || to comply with an order substantially affecting the Treasury. See Berg, 268 F.3d at 822 (quoting 3 || Feb. R. Civ. P. 24 advisory committee’s notes 1966 Amendment) (“We follow the guidance of 4 || Rule 24 advisory committee notes that state that ‘[i]f an absentee would be substantially affected 5 || ina practical sense by the determination made in an action, he should, as a general rule, be entitled 6 || to intervene.’”’). 7 Finally, it is clear to the court that the Government and Guardiola have directly conflicting 8 || interests in this case—Guardiola, to the objection of the Government, argues she is entitled to over 9 || a million dollars of recovered RAC and MAC proceeds. While the two may have had aligned 10 || interests at the outset of this litigation, it is clear that Guardiola no longer adequately represents 11 || the rights of the Government given that the two represent such fundamentally different positions. 12 |} See Trbovich v. United Mine Workers of America, 404 U.S. 528, 538 n.10 (1972) (“The 13 || requirement of the Rule is satisfied if the applicant shows that representation of his interest ‘may 14 || be’ inadequate; and the burden of making that showing should be treated as minimal.”). 15 Good cause appearing, IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Government’s unopposed 16 |} motion to intervene (ECF No. 237) is GRANTED. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 DATED this 14th day of February, 2020. 20 21 LAR . HIC 0 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28