Singbush v. Florida Neurological Center, LLC

CourtDistrict Court, M.D. Florida
DecidedNovember 23, 2020
Docket5:19-cv-00603
StatusUnknown

This text of Singbush v. Florida Neurological Center, LLC (Singbush v. Florida Neurological Center, LLC) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, M.D. Florida primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Singbush v. Florida Neurological Center, LLC, (M.D. Fla. 2020).

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA OCALA DIVISION

MICHAEL SINGBUSH, ANDREA HERRERA and HARVEY KESSLER MEYER, IV,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No: 5:19-cv-603-Oc-PGBPRL

FLORIDA NEUROLOGICAL CENTER, LLC and LANCE Y. KIM,

Defendants.

ORDER Plaintiff brought a qui tam lawsuit against Defendants under the False Claims Act (FCA). On November 4, 2019 (the Court’s deadline for intervention), the United States filed its notice that it had not made a determination regarding intervention. (Doc. 10). Since then, the United States has continued its investigation and initiated settlement discussions with Defendants, which has led to a settlement agreement in principle. Accordingly, the United States now seeks leave to intervene in Counts I and II of the Second Amended Complaint for purposes of settlement. (Doc. 63).1 Because the deadline to intervene has passed, the United States would need to show good cause to intervene if its’ intent was to proceed and take over the case. However, when as here, the United States is seeking to intervene solely for purposes of settlement, it need not satisfy the good- cause intervention standard. See United States v. Everglades College, Inc., 855 F.3d 1279, 1286

1 In the motion, the United States seeks leave to intervene in “Count I and II of the First Amended Complaint.” Doc. 63 at 1. However, a review of the docket shows that the Second Amended Complaint is the operative pleading. (Doc. 48). (11 Cir. 2017) (“[C]onsistent with the holdings of other circuits, we hold that the United States is not required to satisfy the good-cause intervention standard in § 3730(c)(3) when settling a qui tam action brought under the FCA.”’). Accordingly, and based on the United States’ representation that the motion is unopposed by the Relators and the Defendants, the United States’ motion to intervene for purposes of settlement (Doc. 63) is GRANTED. DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on November 23, 2020.

[Serre PHILIP R. LAMMENS United States Magistrate Judge Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties

-2-

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

USA v. Everglades College, Inc.
855 F.3d 1279 (Eleventh Circuit, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Singbush v. Florida Neurological Center, LLC, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/singbush-v-florida-neurological-center-llc-flmd-2020.