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

Opinion

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 Plaintiff/Relator, OBJECTION OF MAGISTRATE v. JUDGE DECISION

ST. MARK’S HOSPITAL; INTERMOUNTAIN HEALTHCARE, Case No. 2:16-CV-304-TS-EJF INC.; INTERMOUNTAIN MEDICAL CENTER; SHERMAN SORENSEN, District Judge Ted Stewart M.D., and SORENSEN CARDIOVASCULAR GROUP,

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)). 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:

United States District Judge